Apparently there wasn’t enough of an actual Bay view from this year’s San Francisco Dream House for their marketing materials, so as a plugged-in tipster catches, they simply photoshopped in a little more (versus photoshopping out a tower last year).
Also noted by our tipster, while the mailing mentions “house” five times, it doesn’t once mention “condominium,” and this year’s “dream house” is technically a condo.
∙ San Francisco Dreaming At 65 Mountain Spring Avenue [SocketSite]
“Dream Condo”, “Dream Townhome” or “Dream TIC Unit” just don’t have that ring to it…
I wonder when this kind of outrageous scam is going to end.
LOL! They literally clone-tooled the Indonesian consulate away! The 2400 block of Broadway is a great block. Why the need for a raffle? Odd..
Your tipster has a good eye! However it looks as if the first photo was taken a couple of blocks south from where the photo on the postcard was shot.
The YBCA should consider distancing themselves from this sleazy sweepstakes organization or risk tarnishing their image.
^No.. both pix are from the 2400 block of Broadway. You can see the 2400 block of Vallejo below. The second pic is just zoomed in a bit to cut out the houses on the south side of Vallejo.
Speaking of 2400 Broadway. Is another home coming for sale on that block? They’ve been doing some minor repairs, paint, and landscaping on a house toward the western end near Pierce. Should be fun to watch.
Have we already determined it is 2460 Broadway? And why is it up for auction when it was just purchased?
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2460-Broadway-St-San-Francisco-CA-94115/53153194_zpid/
Raffle, not auction. They are side by side units with separate backyards.
Sleazy, now? Please. It’s a raffle for an arts center.
“waaah. Those floating logos above the Bay from Channel 7, AAA, Titan, and Clearchannel aren’t really in the actual view! and I happen to love giant banners!”
whatever.
“The home is complete with laundry room, custom storage, built-in bookcases, and pull down access to attic storage.”
This home is incomplete without parking.
eddy
you’re back!
I’m just out of the studio preparing for tour. Actually, I’ve decided to get out of the flame war / troll game for a while. Pointless.
I guess it’s ok to misrepresent if it’s for a good cause. I’ll remember that one. I have a good cause called “early retirement” and the people in it are really hurting.
Uh,
yeah,
well,
um,
IT’S A FREAKIN CHARITY RAFFLE
anon.ed – I doubt that the YBCA directed whoever is running the raffle to use deceptive practices to boost the perceived value of the home. Even if the YBCA did engage in sleaziness the fact that they’re an arts center doesn’t absolve them from conning the players.
And please tell us that you aren’t serious about the obvious superimposed logos being as deceptive as the elongation of the water view. The latter was subtle and it took someone very familiar with that particular view to notice. The other 99.9% (myself included) wouldn’t have noticed the deception.
My theory is that the photo was produced by someone with a strong interest in enhancing the perceived value of this property. A raffle beneficiary is too far removed from the equation that such a subtle deception would be worth the risk.
This is obviously a post apocalyptic view of pac heights after the big earthquake and tsunami. Complete with that goofy QR code. Bedrock, schmedrock.
“boost the value of the home”?
No, I’m sure they didn’t tell anybody to attempt to “boost the value” of the prize that somebody is going to win with a $150 ticket.
“My theory is that the photo was produced by someone with a strong interest in enhancing the perceived value of this property”
That’s not a theory. That’s just saying something that pops into your head on the internet, which you do that a great deal on here, often backing up later. Like they’re not going to go visit the place after the grand prize is won? The value is whatever it gets appraised for, after the prize is won, or the cash. People always take the cash anyway. And it’s a set number. I repeat, a set number. I’ll say it a third time, the figure is predetermined.
Regardless, I’m dead serious about the superimposed logos. Somebody might really like ABC Channel 7, OK? Bet you never stopped to think about that!
klassy with a k!
that looks hilarious.
The clearing of the view is part of the tear down of Doyle Drive in a couple of weeks. While they are busy digging and chopping, they figured they’d fix this in a jiffy. It’s for a good cause. Indonesians of the BA will understand.
Actually the condo will be delivered with the appropriate window sticker along with a Kodak Photo Spot marker in the dining room. Voila. Promises delivered.
Has anyone of the winners over the years actually paid the taxes and kept the house?
anon.ed – What is your theory about why someone would spend the time to modify that photo? And don’t assume that the work was done in conjunction with this raffle. Odd that someone was compelled to juice what is already a fantastic view.
Even odder is to defend deception, charity or not.
“What is your theory about why someone would spend the time to modify that photo?”
Um, because he/she is an art director used to trying to make things look a little better in ads.
“And don’t assume that the work was done in conjunction with this raffle.”
Why assume otherwise?
“Odd that someone was compelled to juice what is already a fantastic view”
Yes. Chalk it up to, “huh. That’s odd.” then leave it. Don’t talk about “sleazy” this, and “deceptive” that and “boost value” this. Really. The amount is set, buddy. All of those words are not in keeping with the situation. Like many things you say, this was silly, casually tossed off, and just you trying to stir the Socketsite pot up a little.
“Even odder is to defend deception, charity or not.”
Defend? No. Not even close to that level of involvment.
I am not convinced that any Photoshopping was done here. Based on the different relative positioning of various buildings in the foregrounds of the two shots, and the different positioning of buildings in the foregrounds relative to the backgrounds, I could believe that the two photos were taken from completely different locations, then cropped accordingly.
Based on the evidence presented, I am not convinced either way.
[Editor’s Note: The image from the mailing is two “croppings” of the first image above combined: the original background with a close-up of the foreground photoshopped together, see comments below.]
NJ, really? Independent of sleaziness/deception argument, that is one horrible photoshop. The buildings/trees are completely outsized for being on the other side of the water. The circled area has a white building and a tree silhouette directly corresponding to the original photo. And on top of that, they’re directly superimposed on a bridge that’s now much shorter than a couple of two-story buildings! Besides, can’t you tell from the pixels?
After looking at it a little closely, it actually looks like the top half of the photo used for the ad is exactly the same as the top half of the top photo, and they pasted it onto a different, zoomed in lower half. The trees and the buildings on the left side of the photo on the far side of the bay are floating decapitated tops at the edge of the water. The line of fusion of the two photos would run horizontally right through the middle of the water. What an odd idea.
Nj, the photo was altered. If you look under the first ‘s’ in “our sponsors”, you’ll see a dark shape just above the bay that spans to the ‘n’ in the same word.
That same shape is visible in the actual photo as the tops of trees on this side of the bay.
It’s somewhat of an acedemic discussion, because, except for the first year of the contest, they have never actually awarded the house to the grand prize winner: they never seem to sell the minimum required number of tickets.
So you can look at the pretty pictures, and then you get awarded a big suitcase full of cash that is based on the number of tickets sold.
That is interesting…… so how about this (1) pick a ridiculously expensive (and not owned – can we do that?) house in Pacific Heights, (2) set up a raffle, (3) provide that winner gets the house only if proceeds exceed purchase price (i.e., once we have enough cash we will attempt to buy the house) minus costs and otherwise gets cash minus same costs. Set costs at 10-20% of gross.
You guys have it all backwards. The 2nd photo is THE actual photo and the 1st has the building photoshopped into the bay to LOWER the value of the home and reduce the public’s interest in the rafflte. It’s all part of the Tipsters evil ploy.
Socketsite has fallen victim to this evil tipster…
@ tipster and wrath. I think in the beginning the winners were the ones who selected cash and not the house because that was the obvious thing to do … take a suitcase full of dough, pay half in taxes versus having to find the tax money for a house you never thought to buy. Later as they ran too many of these the bloom wore off and less people felt like putting up $150 then it became necessary to make it a cash raffle. I totally agree that YBC should divorce itself from this. Its become total sleaze.
They always had cash prizes.
Oceangoer is exactly right. Only the first winner got to choose. There were articles that implied that they selected the house, but that might have been more of an announcement that they had won. Upon further looking, I could find no evidence they ever took title to the home, and there is a more definitive article that said they took the cash, so they probably took the cash, and they now live in Moraga.
http://sfappeal.com/news/2009/08/ybca-dream-house-winner-takes-money-runs.php
The other winners never got to choose: they got a cash prize only.
So the whole house raffle is a bit of a marketing ploy. Either you don’t get the home or you don’t take the home. So who really cares whether the photo was shopped.
The “house raffle” thing is just a gimmick, and probably does nothing more than convert what would be an illegal lottery into a legal charitable prize contest.
[Editor’s Note: 1240 5th Avenue: Raffle Winner Chooses Reality Over The Dream, San Francisco’s “$3 Million” Dream House Returns Asking $2.595M, and A Regularly Recurring Dream.]
$150 a pop? Didn’t it use to be $100?
I got mine in the mail yesterday – it’s even more comical see up close.
Tipster, you’re citing one news story that says the first winner got to choose. And you’re just asking people to take your word for it that subsequent winners did not. That doesn’t work for me due to your track record. I’d be open to seeing evidence, but I’m doubting what you say.
The other thing Oceangoer said is that there’s diminishing interest. Well it’s a fact that cash prizes were offered all along, and not added to make up for lack of interest. And indeed, if there’s increasing lack of interest, why expand into other areas? That doesn’t stand to reason either.
Again, the photoshopping was a silly thing to do. But everybody is on about “sleazy” this and that. I’ve only seen opinions from people who are rather unafraid to get things wrong again and again on a website, and nothing more.
[Editor’s Note: As we reported in years past and noted above, tipster is correct with respect to the past three raffle results.]
Photos are now on the raffle website: http://sfraffle.com/Photos.aspx. Looks like Marten was right about the identify of this property.
The unadulterated view shot is included on the website. I’ll bet the raffle organizers wish they could recall those mailed cards with the doctored photo too.
Subtle value-enhancing photo edits that portray something that doesn’t exist is manipulative. It doesn’t matter if it was for charity or whether no-one has (yet) accepted the house.
If the edits were obvious then that’s OK. If they were done for arts sake alone then fine. But subliminal manipulation used on marketing material in advance of money changing hands is deceptive and sleazy.
Putting a fake picture on a postcard announcing a raffle is sleazy.
Yeah OK but the view really is top notch. Why they even went there is more weird than sleazy IMO.
Yes exaggerating an already awesome view is puzzling. I don’t know much about PH but perhaps there’s something of a “view envy” out there. In other words it isn’t enough to have a great view, you have to have a view that exceeds that of your neighbors.
Never noticed the photo change. The only “manipulative” thing we noticed was that it’s part of a much larger building but they cropped out the other, mirrored half making it look like a SFH (not that I blame them).
But the thing that stood out to me and the Mrs was the mailer, website and TV ad all did a horrible job of showing off the value of the place. It doesn’t look anything at all like a $3.9M house if you take out the view and street it sits on. Some of the staging is awful and the kitchen and bathrooms are very ho-hum. Yet those items are all featured prominently. In one shot on TV they sweep the bedroom, showing only the bed and end tables, and totally ignore the fact the bedroom has a stunning view. I would have minimized all that and spent way more space and time on the view and neighborhood.
Given what others have said above, I guess I now know why. If it’s really just a cash prize anyway, why put in the extra effort to make the house look its best?
[Editor’s Note: As we reported in years past and noted above, tipster is correct with respect to the past three raffle results.]
That’s inaccurate. Actually you reported in that link that the 5th Ave winner had the choice, and chose the cash. What Tipster said was that after the first one there was no choice.
[Editor’s Note: 5th Street was the first one and after which the winners didn’t have a choice as the minimum number tickets sold to qualify for a choice wasn’t met in raffles two
and three.]For those of you who want to transfer in this area make sure what you are buying isn’t a photoshopped one! Some may go over the edge just for sheer marketing, but I think we shouldn’t deceive people here, c’mon. Keep the business clean people.
“…as the minimum number tickets sold to qualify for a choice wasn’t met in raffles two and three.”
If that’s the case can you link to an article please? Because, again, it would seem to run contrary to the contest’s expansion into other areas.
@ weeoo, tipster: Yes, I see the obvious Photoshop now. Embarrassed I missed it earlier.
It is indeed bizarre that anyone felt the effort (not that it was much of one, apparently) was needed for what was already a great view.
“If that’s the case can you link to an article please?”
Dude, give it a rest. You just aren’t worth anyone’s time. Really.
I think I’m worth my time. And I was curious. So I searched and found nothing to substantiate that they haven’t had a choice since the first one.
In fact, last year’s press release after the contest reads just like this year’s contest. And it reads that there was choice, and that they chose the $1.1M cash last year. In the synopsis they use the house prize and the grand prize interchangeably: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/07/26/prweb8669726.DTL
There’s nothing about it getting switched. So I’m putting that down to a rumor you managed to get the editor to believe. Can’t blame him from getting taken in on occasion, as nearly all your words ring untrue. Well, can’t blame him other than wondering why you get so much leeway on here.
[Editor’s Note: Try following the links. Once again, as we reported in 2010: “With only 36,313 tickets sold versus 38,000 sales required to trigger the “dream house” clause in this year’s San Francisco Dream House Raffle, the grand prize winner walked away with $1,500,000 in cash versus the Noe Valley home at 815 Alvarado.”]
You’ve made a case for 1 of 3 and I can’t find a link substantiating a lack of ticket sales triggering anything, other than your say-so. That said, I’ll take your word for it on the Noe one as it looks legit. Sorry for not seeing the links in the first place … they looked like one link at a glance. But you get stuff wrong from time to time, and Tipster is the boy who cried wolf, so what do you expect?
[Editor’s Note: Three of three as reported. That being said, while the house wasn’t awarded last year as we originally reported, ticket sales were, in fact, sufficient to trigger the prize, note corrected above.]
OK, so the bloom isn’t off the rose as last year’s raffle did better than the previous. And Tipster in point of fact didn’t have it correct. Thanks + typical.
2011, the choice was the house or $1.4M in cash. The winner got 1.1M.
http://widget.digestspy.com/third-year-in-san-francisco-dream-house-raffle-400-awards-including-2-8-million-home/
Thus, the winner did not get her choice of the house or 1.4M in cash. So I conclude that, like the year before, ticket sales were insufficient.
[Editor’s Note: From the fine print this year and likely in play in 2011: “…the Grand Prize winner may elect to receive an annuity of $1,500,000 paid over 20 years or a onetime $1,100,000 cash payment…”]
Looks like an inept postcard designer ‘shopping just for aesthetic value. Probably has no exposure to real estate and has never seen the bay.
I called the raffle organizer last year and they told me that the minimum number of tickets were sold and that the house was offered but declined by the winner. That house also saw some photo shop work in that Sutro tower was air brushed out of the website shots.
With regard to this year’s building, you can find the sale at $3.5mn six months ago and that sale would appear to include two condos, one the garden level ground floor condo. Pictures of the garden and ground floor condo can be seen on RedFin etc. I think the most deceptive thing going on here is to call the Dream House a “House” repeatedly and to show a three level building in the promotional materials when only two levels are included.