The VPA conversation is where many listings are won or lost. Vendors arrive sceptical—they’ve heard stories about agents pushing unnecessary marketing spend. Agents feel pressure to recommend appropriate campaigns while sensing vendor resistance.

After 25 years of these conversations, I’ve encountered every objection. More importantly, I’ve learned which responses actually work.

Understanding Vendor Scepticism

Vendor resistance to VPA typically stems from legitimate concerns:

Trust deficit: Vendors wonder whether recommended spend genuinely helps them or primarily benefits the agent’s marketing appearance.

Budget constraints: Selling costs add up—agent commission, legal fees, styling, repairs. VPA feels like another drain on net proceeds.

Uncertain value: Unlike commission (which ties to sale success), VPA is spent regardless of outcome. That asymmetry creates discomfort.

Past experience: Some vendors have previously paid for marketing that seemed ineffective. Once burned, twice shy.

Effective VPA conversations acknowledge these concerns rather than dismissing them.

Objection 1: “Why Should I Pay for Marketing That Benefits You?”

This is the trust objection. Vendors perceive VPA as funding agent brand-building rather than property-specific promotion.

What not to say: “That’s not how it works” or “Industry standard requires it.” Defensive responses reinforce suspicion.

Better approach:

“I understand the concern—it’s a fair question. Let me explain exactly where this money goes and why it’s separate from my commission.

The VPA budget funds your property’s specific campaign: professional photography of your home, your listing on REA Group’s realestate.com.au and Domain, the virtual tour showing your specific rooms, your signboard outside your property.

None of this promotes my brand or helps my other listings. It’s all invested in presenting your property to buyers.

I’m incentivised to recommend effective marketing because successful sales earn me referrals and reputation. Recommending expensive marketing that doesn’t deliver would hurt my business, not help it.

If you’re uncertain about any specific item, I’m happy to explain exactly what it achieves and why I’ve included it.”

The key: specificity and transparency. Show exactly where money goes.

Objection 2: “Can’t You Just Take It from Your Commission?”

This is the budget objection. Vendors want marketing but don’t want to pay separately.

What not to say: “That’s not how agencies work” or “My commission doesn’t cover marketing.” These sound like excuses.

Better approach:

“I can structure it that way, but let me explain why it may not serve you best.

If I absorb marketing costs into commission, I need to ensure I can cover those costs. That means either increasing the commission percentage or reducing the campaign quality.

The VPA model aligns incentives better: you invest in marketing you control, and my commission relates to achieving your sale result. If we roll everything together, you lose visibility into what’s being spent where.

That said, I work with vendors’ circumstances. If cash flow before settlement is the constraint, some agencies offer marketing funding against the sale proceeds. We can explore options that work for your situation.

What’s driving the preference to consolidate rather than separate?”

This response shows flexibility while explaining why separation benefits vendors.

Objection 3: “The Property Will Sell Itself”

This is the value objection. Vendors believe their property is so desirable that marketing is unnecessary.

What not to say: “Every property needs marketing” or “You’d be surprised.” These dismiss vendor confidence.

Better approach:

“Your property is excellent—that’s why I want to represent it. But ‘sells itself’ means different things.

Yes, your property will sell. The question is: to whom, for how much, and how quickly?

With minimal marketing, you’ll reach buyers actively searching right now who happen to find your listing. With comprehensive marketing, you’ll reach that group plus buyers who aren’t actively searching but would be interested if they knew about this opportunity.

More buyers means more competition. More competition typically means higher price and faster settlement. The marketing isn’t about whether you’ll sell—it’s about optimising who you sell to and what they pay.

Let me show you comparable properties in this street. The ones with comprehensive campaigns achieved prices 5-8% higher than those with minimal marketing. That’s the difference we’re discussing.”

Use data to demonstrate value, not assertions.

Objection 4: “I Don’t Want Premium Portal Listings”

This targets specific VPA components. Vendors question whether premium REA or Domain placements justify their cost.

What not to say: “Everyone does it” or “It’s essential.” These don’t address the actual question.

Better approach:

“Fair question. Let me show you exactly what premium placement provides.

Standard listings appear in search results based on recency and relevance. Premium listings appear at the top regardless of when they were listed.

In your suburb, there are currently 47 active listings in your price range. A standard listing might appear on page 2 or 3 of search results. Premium placement keeps you visible on page 1 throughout the campaign.

The data shows premium listings receive 3-4x more views than standard. More views mean more enquiries, more inspections, and more potential buyers at your auction.

For your property specifically, I’ve recommended [standard/premium] because [reasoning]. I’m not recommending premium for every listing I take—only where the buyer pool and competition level justify it.

If budget is the constraint, we can discuss what to prioritise. But I wouldn’t recommend something I didn’t believe delivered value exceeding its cost.”

Always connect recommendations to specific property circumstances.

Objection 5: “Can I See What Other Vendors Paid?”

This is the comparison objection. Vendors want benchmarks.

What not to say: “That’s confidential” (sounds evasive) or provide false precision (“exactly $3,847 on average”).

Better approach:

“Absolutely. I track marketing investment and results across my sales.

For properties similar to yours—[price range, property type, suburb]—typical VPA investment ranges from $X to $Y. The variation reflects different vendor priorities, property presentation needs, and campaign strategies.

Here are three recent examples:

• [Property 1]: Invested $X, achieved [result], [days] on market
• [Property 2]: Invested $Y, achieved [result], [days] on market
• [Property 3]: Invested $Z, achieved [result], [days] on market

The pattern shows that appropriate marketing investment correlates with stronger outcomes, but it’s not about spending maximum—it’s about matching investment to what the property needs.

For your property, I’m recommending $[amount] because [specific reasons]. That sits [where] relative to comparable campaigns, and here’s why that positioning makes sense for your situation.”

Transparency with context builds trust.

The Underlying Principle

Effective VPA conversations share common elements:

Acknowledge legitimacy: Vendor concerns are reasonable. Treating them otherwise creates adversarial dynamics.

Provide specificity: Generic assertions don’t convince. Specific data, examples, and reasoning do.

Demonstrate alignment: Show that you succeed when they succeed. Your recommendation isn’t about extracting money—it’s about achieving their goals.

Offer flexibility: Rigid packages signal inflexibility. Willingness to discuss options signals partnership.

Focus on outcomes: Connect every dollar to expected results. Vendors don’t buy marketing; they buy buyers, competition, and optimal prices.

VPA conversations don’t have to be adversarial. Done well, they build the trust that wins listings and starts relationships on strong foundations.

---

Linda Powers consults with real estate agencies on vendor communication and listing conversion. Her 25-year career includes countless VPA conversations across Sydney markets.