The short answer
Motion only wins when it shows something a still can't
Because motion draws attention to itself first, and only to your listing second. A busy animated ad gets clocked as an ad right away, and readers dismiss it the same beat they notice it. A clean still with a strong photo reads more like content than an interruption, so it gets a real look. Video only pulls ahead of a still when it shows something a photo physically cannot show.
Why a still sometimes beats a moving ad
A still photo has a strange advantage: it can look like it belongs on the page instead of on top of it. A strong image sits in a feed the way a good photo from a friend would, and your eye gives it a beat of real attention before deciding what it is. A busy animated ad skips that beat. The motion flags it as an ad immediately, and once something reads as an ad, a lot of people are already reaching to scroll past it.
This is the trap with a lot of animated listing ads: sliding captions, a slow zoom on a photo, a fade between two shots of the same kitchen. None of that is adding information.
When motion actually earns its place
Animation is worth it when it shows something a photo cannot. A walkthrough that moves you through a floor plan is doing a job no still can do, because it answers how the rooms connect, not just what one room looks like. Footage with a person in it, an agent, a homeowner, changes how the ad reads too, because a moving human face holds attention in a way a static image of an empty room does not. A real before-and-after, a renovation or a staged transformation, only makes sense in motion, since the whole point is the change over time.
In all of those cases the motion is not decorating the message, it is the message. That is the line to hold. If you can describe what the video shows in one sentence and that sentence would be just as true of a photo, you probably did not need the video.
The test to run before you pick a format
Ask one question before you choose: does the motion show something a still cannot, or is it just waving. A walkthrough passes that test. A person talking passes it. A slow pan across a listing photo does not, because the photo was already showing you everything it had to show, and the pan just adds a few extra seconds before you get to see it.
Most agents default to video because it feels like the more serious, more produced option, and sometimes it is. But a still your reader actually likes beats a video they merely tolerate, every time. Pick the format that earns the look, not the one that looks like it tried hardest to get one.
Are video ads better than image ads in real estate?
Not automatically, and not by default. A video only beats a still when the motion is doing real work, like a walkthrough that actually tours the space or footage with a person in it. Slap a drifting zoom and some sliding text on a photo that was already strong and you have not improved it, you have just added noise. A still your reader likes beats a video they sit through.
Static vs animated listing ads, which should you run?
Depends on what the animation is actually adding. If the motion shows a room dimension, a flow between spaces, or a before-and-after that only lands because it moves, animate it. If the motion is just decoration on top of a photo that was already telling the story, a still works harder for less effort. Ask what the movement shows, not whether movement looks nice.
When should you use video in a real estate ad?
Use video when the format is the message: a walkthrough, a person talking, a transformation shown over time. Those are things a still cannot do, so the motion earns its screen time. Anything short of that, a strong photograph is doing the same job with less friction. Save video for what only video can show.