Author Topic: People ignore general stock photos? (Read 10302 times)

LSD72 · « **on:** November 02, 2010, 22:40 »

I kinda think this is a little flawed by their examples shown towards the Bottom. How many people are going to look at a TV to see how it looks? I go for the Specs. because pretty much all of them are Black / Grey and rectangular in shape.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/study-shows-people-ignore-generic-photos-online/

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1 on:** November 02, 2010, 22:52 »

I think this could be another flavor of the talk about a trend towards more real/authentic content and images. Although Yuri's sales would suggest that there's only so much truth in that

I think a while back someone was talking about people sticking with web sites that were useful - and that getting people to your site if you had nothing of use to them when they got there was a waste of time. If a stock photo is useful in some way given the site content, I don't think the fact that it's stock vs. the owner of the business's wife in a custom shot would make much difference to the site visitor.

Ask designers about used car ads - you'll get an earful about how awful they are (and they are visually completely hideous). The fact that they keep running them must mean they're useful somehow in spite of their ugliness.

A custom photo shoot of a boring TV isn't going to be any more more appealing than a stock photo of the same thing.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #2 on:** November 02, 2010, 23:52 »

that's an interesting study for sure.. in my case I just look at the pictures LOL if it is something I need I don't care about the picture or the ad, I go to the specs straight away

it depends like a lot of persons said in the comments area.. if you are going to buy a tv who cares about the girl on the screen, I guess 99% will see the specifications etc.. but in a lot of different subjects it might get you more focus.. products for women perhaps

LSD72 · « **Reply #3 on:** November 03, 2010, 00:36 »

I will guarantee that if I have a ad for a Lady's Easy Leg Hair removal system and use a Micro Stock Shot of a Chainsaw .... People will look at that Photo..lmao.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #4 on:** November 03, 2010, 03:08 »

Just because your eye doesn't lock onto a specific image does not mean your brain does not take it all in peripherally and add to your processing of the information.

Microbius · « **Reply #5 on:** November 03, 2010, 03:16 »

Quote from: sjlocke on November 03, 2010, 03:08

Just because your eye doesn't lock onto a specific image does not mean your brain does not take it all in peripherally and add to your processing of the information.

Exactly what I was thinking. It might be more accurate to say "people take in general stock photos differently" than "people ignore general stock photos".
Negative space has a massive impact on how we perceive the design of a page or website, how much more so the images that provide the décor but not the focus of a site?

Magnum · « **Reply #6 on:** November 03, 2010, 04:18 »

Quote from: sjlocke on November 03, 2010, 03:08

Just because your eye doesn't lock onto a specific image does not mean your brain does not take it all in peripherally and add to your processing of the information.

+1

Good stock images just pass your eyes... It´s no "best picture" competition we´re in

Dreamframer · « **Reply #7 on:** November 03, 2010, 16:24 »

I think Mr. Nielsen is just a jealous ex unsuccessful stock photographer who wants to assure buyers not to buy stock images,

ShadySue · « **Reply #8 on:** November 03, 2010, 16:52 »

He's forgotten the usability function of 'generic' images which is to keep the text lines readably short without creating a thin column down the side or centre of the page.

lisafx · « **Reply #9 on:** November 03, 2010, 18:33 »

Quote from: Microbius on November 03, 2010, 03:16

Quote from: sjlocke on November 03, 2010, 03:08
Just because your eye doesn't lock onto a specific image does not mean your brain does not take it all in peripherally and add to your processing of the information.
Exactly what I was thinking. It might be more accurate to say "people take in general stock photos differently" than "people ignore general stock photos".
Negative space has a massive impact on how we perceive the design of a page or website, how much more so the images that provide the décor but not the focus of a site?

Exactly. Stock images are there to attract viewers to the content of the page. They are window dressing. Whereas a picture of a "real person" in an article is probably the subject of the article, and therefore more relevant to the content.

And if the real person is a celebrity, then of course they are going to get more attention. Most people love to look at celebrities. Why else would E!, Us Magazine, etc. be so popular?

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #10 on:** November 03, 2010, 18:45 »

The eye-tracking stuff looks interesting but it needs someone other than Captain Obvious to analyze and present the findings.

pet_chia · « **Reply #11 on:** November 03, 2010, 19:02 »

Quote from: Dreamframer on November 03, 2010, 16:24

I think Mr. Nielsen is just a jealous ex unsuccessful stock photographer who wants to assure buyers not to buy stock images,

Has a plain-looking spouse, children and/or dog and nobody bought his stock? LOL

MarkFGD · « **Reply #12 on:** November 03, 2010, 20:48 »

If you're called Pottery Barn and have an online catalogue selling bookshelves you do, of course, have to show images of the actual products your selling. These cannot be sourced from a stock library so how can his article have any credibility when he uses that example to illustrate why you're better off commissioning your own shoot?

What a plonker!

travelstock · « **Reply #13 on:** November 03, 2010, 23:56 »

So how much more engaged with the page are you going to be if it doesn't have photos at all?

Microbius · « **Reply #14 on:** November 04, 2010, 04:31 »

http://www.uspressnews.com/articles/1101

Noodles · « **Reply #15 on:** November 04, 2010, 05:05 »

“Invest in good photo shoots: a great photographer can add a fortune to your Web site’s business value.” After all, he notes, most sites are full of “fluff — of which there’s too much already on the Web.”

I like this guy

ShadySue · « **Reply #16 on:** November 04, 2010, 05:30 »

Quote from: MarkFGD on November 03, 2010, 20:48

If you're called Pottery Barn and have an online catalogue selling bookshelves you do, of course, have to show images of the actual products your selling. These cannot be sourced from a stock library so how can his article have any credibility when he uses that example to illustrate why you're better off commissioning your own shoot?

What a plonker!

I have seen in the request forum on iStock (but not in the past few months) people saying "We are a company that makes [type of product] and would be grateful if people would put up photos of [type of product] for our website/adverts.
I guess that must be legal in some countries.
As well as being illegal here, it would seem be be counter productive:
Customer: I'd like to buy a [type of product] exactly like the one on your website.
Sales rep: Well, actually we don't sell that one.
Where would you go from there?
Or of course, the rep would no doubt actually say, "That's one has proved so popular it's out of stock, but we do have ...", casting doubts on the reliability or common sense of a company that would quickly run out of the product they were featuring in adverts.

Digital66 · « **Reply #17 on:** November 04, 2010, 12:58 »

Quote from: Dreamframer on November 03, 2010, 16:24

I think Mr. Nielsen is just a jealous ex unsuccessful stock photographer who wants to assure buyers not to buy stock images,

+1

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: People ignore general stock photos? (Read 10302 times)

LSD72

Jo Ann Snover

luissantos84

LSD72

Sean Locke Photography

Microbius

Magnum

Dreamframer

ShadySue

lisafx

PaulieWalnuts

pet_chia

MarkFGD

travelstock

Microbius

Noodles

ShadySue

Digital66

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors