Marketing Theory: Absence of a Negative = a Positive
Although Minnesota has been ramping up its radon disclosure requirements for several years now, it wasn’t until last week that I actually saw a (new) radon remediation system touted in an MLS listing.
I think there’s a good reason for that — “that” being no other agents marketing that a “For Sale” home has radon mitigation (Note: Minnesota’s Seller Disclosure also includes a section on radon).
Marketing Loser (“Anti-Marketing?”)
My rationale?
Drawing attention to a negative — even if it’s been addressed — is still worse than if the subject never came up at all.
Indeed, by raising it, the Seller may actually serve to underscore the (former) worry, and suggest concerns the Buyer might not otherwise have had.
Like, “Was the radon level extremely high before?” “Is there a lot of radon in nearby homes?” And, “What exactly is radon, anyways, and how worried should I be about it??”
Even if the owner installed the world’s most deluxe, state-of-the-art radon remediation system, I still don’t see highlighting that fact helping to sell the home.
See also, “Twin Cities Contractors: In Demand”; “Home Radon Test “True or False'”; “Minnesota Ratchets Up Radon Requirements“; “Testing for Radon”; “Testing for Radon: Cost-Benefit Analysis;” “Recommending a Radon Test (or Not)“; and “Testing For Radon 2013.“
