Saying your product is “unaffordable” is bad salesmanship for housing.

We know it’s not easy to comfortably afford local housing. And, yes, compared with other parts of the nation, the bang-for-the-buck of a home purchase can seem skimpy.

But we’re witnessing the slowest homebuying stretch in eight years as the count soars for unsold listings and new homes. I’m wondering if some potential homebuyers have been scared off by repeated knocks about “unaffordable” Southern California housing and claims that six-figure incomes are required to be successful house hunters.

Take note of what I found when I put into my trusty spreadsheet a recent affordability study by housing tracker Zillow based on 2017 census housing data, the latest available.

In Los Angeles and Orange counties, 44 percent of buyers made less than $100,000 in 2017. That’s down from 55 percent in 2012 as the Great Recession ended. Nationally, the region ranks 28th among the 35 U.S. metros Zillow tracked.

Sign up for The Home Stretch newsletter . Get weekly housing news on affordability, renting, buying, selling and more. Subscribe here.

However, look at one much-discussed “affordability” marker from the California Association of Realtors: At mid-year 2017, the industry group suggested a typical buyer of a single-family home in Orange County would need an annual income of $158,000 or $103,000 in Los Angeles.

Why this gap between six-figure measurements?

This Realtor benchmark and other affordability indexes usually assume “conservative” homebuying finances — such as putting 20 percent down and spending only 30 percent of income on house payments for a fixed-rate mortgage. These yardsticks also compare a “typical” house hunter making a “median” income buying housing at the “median” price.

That’s not how it works for many folks seeking an affordable” home.

The real world offers Southern California buyers more generous terms than these high-profile affordability measurements. Mortgages with small down payments are widely available. Adjustable-rate deals — with cheaper initial rates — are common. And some lenders will let a borrower into a mortgage that pushes a family’s debt payments up to roughly half of their income.

Of course, budget-strapped house hunters also look to the region’s bargains in the Inland Empire.

In Riverside and San Bernardino counties, Zillow says 64 percent of buyers didn’t make six figures, that’s seventh-best on this scorecard and tops the nation’s 62 percent of buyers with incomes less than $100,000 in 2017.

Maybe that’s why the number of Inland Empire buyers, by Zillow’s math, grew 34 percent in 2012-2017 vs. just 7 percent in L.A.-O.C. Of course, Inland Empire home savings come at a societal cost — those jammed freeways.

So, I’m puzzled as to why the real estate industry isn’t publicly pushing harder to get house hunters up to speed on what may be seen as non-traditional buying strategies. The use of adjustable-rate loans for purchases, for instance, runs well-below historical levels. I used an ARM on my first home purchase three decades ago — a Santa Ana condo — when a fixed mortgage ran 10 percent.

Certainly, making huge financial stretches is not for everyone. Or accepting a lengthy commute. But let’s politely note that creativity in Southern California homebuying has long been required. And perhaps that skill isn’t being tapped enough.

Riskier borrowing can — and has — come back to haunt homebuyers. Who can forget last decade’s lending high jinks?

The Zillow data suggests more than a few house hunters are will to stretch a budget to buy. Or they’re willing to settle for the few low-end housing bargains in the local market. Or maybe they have generous relatives helping make a deal work.

California’s push to create more housing, especially lower-priced options, certainly requires less-than-subtle nudges.

Yet the barrage of reports stating local housing is in “shortage” and “unaffordable” — in part creating political pressure for more building — can have an unintended consequence, too.