Comments on: Generic Stock Photos and Clip Art- Stop the Blandness!

By: erin margolin

erin margolin — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 19:10:24 +0000

Doug,

Hey there, I came over after reading about you on @ShellyKramer’s blog. Appreciate your insights here since I’m a newbie and technotard. I do, however, use some of my very own photos in posts, so that’s something.

Looking to learn all I can, so will be watching you!
;-)
erin margolin
@ErinMargolin

By: Doug Haslam

Doug Haslam — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:21:33 +0000

Another example– I normally find bloggers using photos of themselves in their posts to be a more egotistical version of this creative laziness– jowever, I think Christopher Penn does it in a creative way– he is there (Hi, I’m the author!) but the focus is not usually on his face, but on what he is doing or holding– a recent post is a good example.

By: Doug Haslam

Doug Haslam — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:18:54 +0000

Tad,

Do you have a link to that piece?

Ginger– yes, “personalizing” is part of the problem but I am also frustrated by the laziness behind it. It’s ok to look less slick

By: Tad

Tad — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:02:59 +0000

Doug;
Generic pics are poisonous to your company’s image. If a client can spot a generic pic on your website, what’s next? They automatically feel like they’re being marketed to, rather than honestly engaged, so their BS shield goes up.

If you want further proof, check out Boston Consulting Group’s “CMO Imperative”, a piece written for brands trying to improve their digital presence. The first sentence states: “The new watchwords for marketers are transparency, authenticity, and engagement – a significant change from centrally created, custom-crafted broadcast messages”.

’nuff said. Use real pictures even if they’re not 110% awesome. It covinces clients that a business has 110% real people working there that empathize with their clients’ needs.

By: Ginger Lennon

Ginger Lennon — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:25:46 +0000

Doug — I couldn’t agree with you any more! Especially in a digital age where people are hoping to have more personal interactions with brands via social channels, there is nothing more frustrating than visiting a corporate website with (yuck) — corporate stock photography! I want to see the shining faces behind a company; not a cheesy politically correct stock photo! That’s so 1990.

By: Doug Haslam

Doug Haslam — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 03:08:27 +0000

Bob– that is an awesome link, thanks;

Lisa, define “too mean.”

By: Lisa Thorell

Lisa Thorell — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 01:29:10 +0000

Thanks for staying on this continuing web annoyance, Doug, aka being cranky. As you say, this is a bloody marker for intellectual laziness. Maybe what we need is The Onion or The Razzies to support a socially-reinforcing, anonymously delivered tweet to the massively offending posters: “Congradulations, Your Post has Won Today’s Trite Image Usage Badge”. Too mean?

By: Bob LeDrew

Bob LeDrew — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 00:14:24 +0000

Absolutely spot-on post, Doug. And there’s empirical evidence supporting you as well: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/photo-content.html

The short version:
People Photos = Good (If They’re Real People)
users ignore stock photos of “generic people”
Product Details = Good
Big Photos = Good (When Requested)
Information-Carrying Images = Good

By: Doug Haslam

Doug Haslam — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:29:27 +0000

Bryan, I love the screenshots because it is illustrative and speaks directly to the content, so yeah. I like what Chris does with original photos as well– I’m not as comfortable using photos of myself as Chris and others are, but that’s me. Some of them are perfect, some are just mugging (or to be nicer, better than no image at all). Your perceptions of that might vary.

Ike, your ability and willingness to produce custom images on the fly surpasses most of us. I was happy to use that and even happier to linkbait you.

By: Ike

Ike — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 20:39:03 +0000

Thank you, Doug. For the post, and for the attribution.

One of my favorite rants on this topic is here:

http://ike4.me/stockphotos