One of the more delicate conversations in real estate is when a vendor wants to control the marketing budget. They’ve seen their neighbour’s property featured in a full-page Saturday paper ad or splashed across Instagram, and now they want the same treatment — regardless of whether it makes strategic sense for their property.

I’ve had this conversation dozens of times over the years. Sometimes the vendor is right and I’m being too conservative. More often, they’re focused on feeling like their property is being marketed aggressively rather than on what actually sells properties in 2026.

Here’s my framework for deciding when to accommodate vendor marketing requests and when to push back with data and experience.

The Saturday Paper Ad Question

This one comes up constantly. “I want a full-page ad in the Saturday Domain/Telegraph.”

Fifteen years ago, this was a reasonable request for prestige properties. Today, the ROI on print advertising for most residential property is terrible. We track inquiry sources religiously, and print advertising typically generates 5-10% of buyer inquiries for properties under $3 million.

That’s not zero, so print still has a role. But when a vendor wants to allocate 40-50% of their marketing budget to a medium generating 5-10% of inquiries, that’s mathematically backwards.

When I push back: Sub-$2M properties, younger buyer demographics, apartments and townhouses. The buyers for these properties do not read Saturday newspapers. They scroll realestate.com.au and Instagram. Spending $8,000-12,000 on print ads for a $1.4M townhouse in Rozelle is burning money to make the vendor feel good.

When I compromise: Prestige properties above $3-4M, heritage homes, properties targeting older demographics or downsizers. There’s still some buyer overlap with Saturday paper readership in these segments. I’ll agree to one or two strategic print placements but insist on digital budget taking the majority share.

Social Media Spend

Vendors increasingly want “proper social media marketing” after seeing slick property videos on Instagram. The challenge is that effective social advertising requires ongoing optimisation and audience testing — not just paying someone to make a pretty video and hoping it works.

Most vendor requests for social spend translate to: “make an expensive video and boost it on Instagram.” That’s the least effective way to spend social advertising budget.

When I accommodate: When we can run targeted Facebook/Instagram campaigns with proper audience segmentation, geographic targeting, and A/B testing. Budget needs to be at least $3-5K to make optimisation worthwhile. Anything less is spray-and-pray.

When I push back: When the vendor wants a single hero video for $4-6K but won’t budget for the media spend to promote it properly. A beautiful video that 500 people see is less valuable than adequate photos that reach 10,000 targeted buyers through listing portals.

Google Ads and Search

Some vendors discover that Google Ads exist and decide they want their property “at the top of Google.” The logic is superficially appealing — buyers searching for property should see their listing first.

The execution is complicated. Google property search ads work best for developments, new builds, and off-the-plan sales where you’re targeting keyword searches before buyers hit the major portals. For established properties, buyers are already searching on Domain and REA, where your listing appears naturally if it’s priced and presented properly.

When it makes sense: Unique properties that don’t fit standard search patterns (waterfront, acreage, architectural), or properties where we’re trying to attract interstate or international buyers who might search Google before they search Australian listing portals.

When I push back: Standard suburban properties where buyers already know the area and will find the listing through normal portal browsing. Google Ads for a 3-bed semi in Marrickville is a waste compared to spending that budget on better photography and portal feature upgrades.

”My Friend’s Agent Did This”

The worst vendor marketing requests start with “my friend’s agent spent $X on [marketing tactic], can we do that?”

Real estate agents have wildly different marketing philosophies. Some believe in high-spend campaigns to signal premium service (and justify their commission). Some are conservative and data-driven. Neither approach is inherently wrong, but they produce very different marketing budgets.

When vendors compare your marketing proposal to what their friend’s agent did for a different property in a different market with different buyer demographics, the comparison is meaningless. But they don’t see it that way — they see it as “my friend’s agent spent more, so they care more.”

My approach: I walk vendors through our inquiry source data from recent comparable sales. Here’s where buyers came from. Here’s what drove inspections. Here’s what actually converted to offers. Then I explain how the proposed budget allocates spend across those high-converting channels.

If they’re still fixated on matching their friend’s marketing spend, I’ll either accommodate tactically (agree to the spend but adjust the mix to favour effective channels) or, occasionally, step back from the listing. Chasing someone else’s marketing strategy because it feels more aggressive rarely produces better results.

The Digital Floor Plan Debate

This is an interesting emerging category. Some vendors now want interactive 3D floor plans (Matterport or similar) in addition to standard photography.

For properties over $1.5-2M, I think these are increasingly valuable. Interstate buyers and time-poor professionals appreciate the ability to virtually walk through a property before committing to an in-person inspection. Inquiry quality improves when buyers have thoroughly explored the layout digitally.

For properties under $1M, the value is marginal. Buyers in that segment are generally local, and they’re going to inspect in person regardless. The 3D tour is nice-to-have but doesn’t meaningfully influence buyer behaviour.

When I agree: Properties where we expect significant interstate buyer interest, complex or unusual layouts that benefit from spatial understanding, and prestige properties where the tour signals quality.

When I push back: Standard floor plans in competitive price brackets where buyers will inspect multiple properties in person anyway. Better to allocate that $800-1,200 to portal upgrades or better video content.

The Framework

My decision process comes down to three questions:

1. Will this tactic reach the likely buyer demographic for this property? If the answer is no, it doesn’t matter how good it makes the vendor feel.

2. Can we measure whether it worked? If we can’t track inquiries or inspections back to the spend, we can’t learn from it or justify it.

3. Is this the highest-value use of this portion of the budget? Every dollar spent on X is a dollar not spent on Y. What delivers the best return?

If I can’t give confident positive answers to all three, I push back with data and alternative suggestions. Most vendors respond well to this if you frame it as “I want your budget working as hard as possible” rather than “I know better than you.”

When Data Isn’t Enough

Sometimes vendors don’t care about the data. They want the expensive marketing because it makes them feel their agent is working hard, their property is special, or they’re getting value for their commission.

That’s a legitimate psychological need even if it’s not a strategic necessity. When I sense this dynamic, I’ll sometimes accommodate the request with guardrails — agree to one prestige print placement but insist on digital spend taking priority, or agree to the premium video but cap it at $X to preserve budget for portal features.

Real estate is partly psychology. If agreeing to suboptimal marketing spend is what’s required to secure the listing and maintain vendor confidence, that’s sometimes the right trade-off. Just don’t pretend it’s strategic when it’s really about keeping the client happy.

The key is knowing the difference and being honest with yourself about which situation you’re in.