Price reductions are usually more effective.

No they do not. I tell sellers instead of a bonus to a buyer's agent, why not reduce your price by that amount or offer closing costs by that amount.

I've always been perplexed by this approach...  A property either works for a buyer or it doesn't.  I'd hate anyone to think I supported their choice because I'D make more $$.    I'd rather see any monies directly benefit the buyer, i.e. a list price reduction or addition of a home warranty.

No and no.

Yes and yes.

No, I believe this walks the fine line of bribery.  Any incentive needs to be targeted towards the Buyers

ie a price reduction or decorating bonus etc.  The Realtor should not be benefiting.

I think it does - greed will rear its ugly head at every opportunity

no...especially not needed in a seller's market....DROP THE PRICE....THE PROPERTY IS OVERPRICED IF IT'S NOT SELLING....AND THAT STANDS IN ANY MARKET.

no 

No price reduction is more effective.

Not sure, but it could make you look desperate and make a buyers agent look dishonest to their client.

It might increase showings by agents but I dont think it will bring an offer.  As everyone else mentioned, pricing is key.  If there is going to be an incentive, it should be directed towards the buyer.  I have seen where a property was priced correctly but high HOA fees detered buyers so the seller offered to pay HOA fees for the first year.

Peter,

I have seen them work...each market is radically different.  A

Smells of desperation to me.

We do not need bonuses in my market. Generally, it feels desperate to me. 

Yes, they probably help some agents focus on that listing, if there are several like them. I like the program here in Naples that the new home builders are offering and that is to pay the agents their commission once the contract is signed.  Surprisingly the best part of the offer is that the agent gets to keep the commission, even if the sale is cancelled.

No, the buyers just discount the price by similar amounts.

Peter Mohylsky It might increase activity, but in the end the buyer always makes the final decision.

I dont like it. It indicates that money is driving the deal not value

No.  Lower the price.  Win/Win for seller and buyer.

No.

No. 

The right price matters.   

Not at all, since it is the buyer that pulls the trigger, not us as their agents.

As other's have already said the price is the obstacle so lower the price!

I have not used them, I've been offered them but the house has to work for my client. I do think human nature makes them an effective, often less expensive strategy to the price reduction, but at the end of the day over priced is overpriced.

Not a fan! Usually has the taint of a bribe!

No, no. Reduce the price!

We don't do it - because - we don't think it's a good idea.

Where does it end?

Bonus to appraiser for appraising to contract price?

Bonus to inspector for not finding any problems?

Yes, I believe it can stimulate activity.  I worked in a market where discounting commissions was quite common.  A bonus was certainly an attractive incentive.  I would never show a house just because of the bonus, though.  It still needed to fit the buyers criteria.  

No, it is either priced right or no one looks at at it despite how much of a bonus they want to offer. 

A bonus to agent HAS been instrumental in several sales. The effectiveness of such offers are directly related to the listing agents willingness to directly communicate the bonus to the showing agent.

Most often, the bonus is reassigned to buyer incentive within 30 days.

I have never studied this issue but it might in certain circumstances.  It is the seller's decision regarding whether a bonus should be provided.  There are other more effective ways to generate activity.