Video vs Photos: The Real Stats Behind the Inquiry Boost

You'll see the claim that listings with video get "up to 403% more inquiries" repeated widely across real estate marketing content, including elsewhere on this blog. It's worth pausing on where a stat like that actually comes from and what it does and doesn't tell you, rather than repeating it without context.

Where stats like this typically originate

Figures like this usually trace back to industry studies or platform-reported data comparing listings with video to otherwise-similar listings without it, often from real estate marketing or MLS-adjacent research. The "up to" framing in the most careful versions of this claim is doing real work — it signals a reported ceiling from specific studies or conditions, not a guaranteed outcome for every listing.

What "up to X%" actually means

"Up to 403%" means that in at least some measured case or study, the uplift observed for video-equipped listings reached that figure — not that a typical listing should expect anywhere near that number. Averages across broader data sets are generally more modest, and the results likely vary considerably by property type, price point, market, and how the video itself was produced. Treating a "best case observed" figure as an expected outcome is a common but misleading way these stats get used in marketing content.

What's more consistently supported across sources

Setting aside the specific headline number, the more consistent and defensible finding across the sources this kind of claim usually draws from is directional, not precise: listings with video tend to outperform otherwise-comparable listings without it, across multiple measured outcomes — inquiries, time on listing, and (for short-term rentals) conversion to booking. The direction of the effect is well supported; the exact magnitude varies enough that any single headline percentage should be read as illustrative rather than a number you should expect to replicate.

Why the exact number matters less than it seems

For a practical decision — should you add video to your listing — the precise multiplier matters less than the direction and general consistency of the finding across different sources and contexts. Video reliably helps; exactly how much it helps for your specific property depends on factors a single average statistic can't capture (your local market, how good your existing photos already are, how well the video itself is produced).

How to read marketing statistics generally

This is worth generalising beyond this one stat: any marketing statistic quoting a large, precise-sounding percentage improvement is worth a moment's scepticism about what exactly was measured, over what sample, and whether "up to" language is doing the work of making a best case sound like a typical one. That's true of claims made about Online Viewing's own product just as much as anyone else's — the honest version of the pitch is that video reliably helps, not that a specific eye-catching number is guaranteed.

Frequently asked questions

Should I stop citing the "403% more inquiries" statistic? It's fine to cite as an "up to" figure reflecting a reported best case, as long as it's not presented as a typical or guaranteed outcome for any specific listing.

Is there a more reliable, lower-end estimate I should use instead? Different studies report different ranges, and there isn't a single authoritative consensus figure — the safer general claim is that video listings tend to outperform photo-only listings, without committing to one precise multiplier.

Does video quality affect how close a listing gets to the higher end of these ranges? Reasonably likely, though not something precisely quantified across the available data — well-produced, accurately paced video plausibly performs closer to the upper end than a rushed or poorly matched video would.

The bottom line

The direction of the video-vs-photos finding is well supported: video helps. The specific headline percentages that get repeated in marketing content are usually "up to" figures reflecting a best case, not a typical outcome, and it's worth reading them — and citing them — with that context rather than without it.

See the difference on your own listing rather than relying on an average: Online Viewing — free to try.