NovI do not want a weak property included as a decoy
A Siem Reap comparison should separate genuine candidates from reference examples instead of creating an artificial winner.
This article reflects the named expert’s practical perspective. See NovAsia’s editorial policy for how material is prepared and reviewed.
A final shortlist should contain properties the buyer could genuinely choose. If one home is included only because it makes another look stronger, the comparison has already been staged. The buyer may feel reassured, but they have not been shown a real alternative.
That does not mean weaker or outside-brief properties are useless. Market references can answer valuable questions. What does another 15 percent buy? How much space appears farther from the centre? What changes if the buyer accepts a later handover? A reference can be excellent evidence, but I would label it as a reference rather than present it as a finalist.
The difference matters most when a property clearly fails a condition that the buyer has already treated as mandatory. If a completed home is required by a certain date, a property with unresolved timing can illustrate a different part of the market. It should not be scheduled as an equal final viewing simply to create contrast with the preferred option.
I use a simple test: under what reasonable set of priorities could the buyer select this property? If the answer is clear, the candidate probably belongs. It may be smaller but substantially better located, or more expensive but much easier to use immediately. Those are real trades. If the only path is “the buyer might change everything they told us,” the property is not doing useful work in the shortlist.
Imperfect does not mean weak. In fact, a good shortlist is usually made of imperfect properties because real decisions involve trade-offs. One candidate costs more, another requires more maintenance, a third offers less space. Each stays because it gives something meaningful back. A decoy is different: its main disadvantage is known in advance and it offers no relevant compensating value for this buyer.
Staged comparisons are tempting because they create clarity. Put a strong property next to an obviously unsuitable one and the strong property appears decisive. The problem is that this confidence is fragile. If the buyer later discovers another credible option that was never shown, the original recommendation begins to look engineered even if the preferred home was objectively reasonable.
There is also a cost in time. A viewing requires travel, access coordination and attention. During a short stay in Siem Reap, an unnecessary appointment can replace a more valuable second visit, neighbourhood check or conversation about terms. When the mismatch is already known, showing the property anyway is not automatically thoroughness.
Reference examples work better when their purpose is explicit. “This one does not meet your timing requirement, but it shows how much more space the same budget buys if completion is flexible” is useful information. It lets the buyer understand the cost of a requirement without pretending that the property is a serious candidate today.
Fair comparisons also require comparable information. If the preferred home has detailed costs, handover terms and verified facts while the alternative is left with rough assumptions, the second property can look weak simply because less work was done on it. Before the final decision, the main candidates should be understood to a similar level wherever the information is available.
I also avoid describing an excluded property as generally bad. It may be perfectly suitable for somebody else. The relevant explanation is narrower: it does not solve this buyer's current problem because of timing, format, price, an unresolved condition or a compromise the buyer has already rejected.
Two credible but different homes create a harder conversation, and that is usually a good sign. The buyer has to decide which real benefit matters more. One strong home beside an intentionally weak alternative creates an easy answer but teaches us very little.
I would rather deliver a shortlist of two candidates where either could reasonably be selected than five properties arranged to produce a winner. A useful comparison does not have to make the answer obvious. It has to make the reasons for choosing visible.