It’s just too convenient.
You know exactly what I’m talking about. You need an image for a website, a flier, whatever. Organizing the resources and timing to get actual photography seems to daunting. So enters stock photography.
Stock photography no doubt has its place. I’ve used a lot of services, and more times than not settle with Shutterstock unless I need to get really picky (their $249 for a month is hard to beat).
But David Meerman Scott has put things into perspective fairly well in his rant on visual gobbledygook. In his words,
Why not just use real people on your site? How innovative! Use real employees in a real conference room to represent your employees in a conference room! Damn. Why didn’t we think of that? And use your real customers too.
Stock Photography – Yes or No?
I have to admit, I’ve seen the same images used on the same websites repeatedly. But even if I hadn’t, we all know stock photography when we see it. The unrealistic gatherings around the conference table. The over-the-top hand shake. The too-perfect embrace in a sunlit field.
Why won’t real pictures of real people work for your real customer? Is it really that hard to buy a good camera and capture exactly what you’re communicating?
Stock photography might be hitting its peak. It could be experiencing the law of diminishing returns.
So, what say you? When should you use stock photography, and when should you stray?
————–
Subscribe now to MarketingInProgress.com by email or RSS feed.
You’ll automatically be notified whenever something new is posted.
———-
This article was originally posted at http://www.marketinginprogress.com.
Post Footer automatically generated by Add Post Footer Plugin for wordpress.
Good points. It is comical how utterly obvious Stock photos are, especially if they are of people. The smiling, happy people huddling around a laptop – blech! Stock photos are better, I think, for more conceptual or abstract shots – pictures of factories or airplanes or congested highways – or for specific images like Christmas trees. The people shots are almost always too posed.
That said, the low cost of stock photography is often too much to pass up. Being a good steward of my clients’ budgets, I often can’t in good conscience order up a $5000 to $10,000 photo shoot when such a cheap and “good enough” alternative exists.
So true on the cost of photography. It can be outrageous. And I completely agree on stock photos being great when people aren’t involved.
I always think it’s funny some of the conversation that takes place when selecting images for a home page, etc. (when execs get involved). You get perfect, multi-cultural, young models pitching a product to, the execs hope, everyone.