Veteran Philadelphia Realtor and flipper Mark Wade says that while the shows have some educational value, they make things appear easier than they are in real life.
"Dealing with permits, possible union issues, and the hidden costs related to flipping seem to be glossed over," Wade said. "It is simply not the purchase price plus the cost of paint and carpeting that is used to determine one's profits."
Bruce Irving, former executive producer of This Old House, doesn't watch flipper shows but believes that "if their purpose is to show how a house can be turned into a commodity, something that through dint of a few cosmetic changes can bring more money to the sharpie who did same, I think that's a shame."
"Isn't there anything left that we make that has some soul?" asked Irving, now a renovation consultant based in Cambridge, Mass.
That said, he added that "the before-and-afters show people who are planning to stay put what a few well-placed bucks might do to their home, so more power to 'em."
One big question remains, however: Are flipper shows out of sync with the realities of today's real estate market?
Flippers, both big and small, have been accused of helping to bring about the collapse of the residential market in many regions, including Florida, California (where most of these shows are made), Arizona and Nevada.
"It's tough to flip a house when the rest of the block is in foreclosure," Wade said.
David Bianculli of Cherry Hill, a former TV critic for this newspaper and the New York Daily News and now a media consultant, said everything on cable television is scheduled months in advance, so continuing to run these shows in a changed real estate market might be defensible.
"If they continue to run them in 2008, then they might not be able to make the same argument honestly," said Bianculli, whose Web site is www.tvworthwatching.com.
