This (by Maddox) is hilarious. No surprise B2B technology companies are the culprits.
9 things I learned about the world according to anonymous stock photo models
I long for high technology companies to ditch the use of multi-cultural boardroom handshakes in their corporate communications. But until such time……have a good laugh at their expense.
Filed under: Advertising, B2B, Branding, Direct Mail, Ideas and Riffs, Online, Strategy, marketing
[...] Photo’s in Collateral Chris has a great post on the use of stock photos in our communications material. I know that Quest is guilty of it [...]
very funny
I’ve long envisioned a secret land where these Stock Photo People live. They straighten their business attire, get in their shiny black BMWs and back out of their picket-fenced property onto the smoothly paved road, then drive off into the horizon with the perfect blue sky. They emote about every single occurance in the extreme. Kind of like The Sims, except where everything is harmonious at all times.
Funny post.
[...] at Raw Stylus I have provided you with some really funny stock photos used on sites. Chris had a post awhile back about the use of stock photos and since today is friday and I am in somewhat of a goofy [...]
[...] 31st, 2007 by Chris Hoskin There is a lot of bad stock photography out there. But some great stuff [...]
When a company uses stock photography to portray it’s products and services, it is basically defrauding the public. “Back in the days” when the communications business was conducted for the most part with honesty, integrity, and professionalism, corporate clients would hire actual professional photographers to craft the images they wanted to present to the public. These images would include the employees of the company itself in annual reports, trade advertising and collateral brochures. Not only that, but imagine that companies also would have studio pros shoot their actual products, and not use generic cheap representations, for use in advertising and marketing. So what changed? The cost of producing real photography is expensive, while the cost of downloading fake photography rapidly became ridiculously inexpensive. But money is not the only factor. In a society which eschews individuality and common sense, the overriding influences of “diversity” with sameness, generic commonality flourishes. Sooner or later everyone will know that nothing is essentially real. Freedom of expression is emphasized everywhere, while it is impossible to actually think or speak freely anywhere. What difference does it make if pet stores all use the same adorable puppy as their “mascot,” which they never had in their establishment for the public to see and pet? Who cares if a software company doesn’t show Simdeep in New Delhi as the real “Customer Care Operator?” But wait a minute, you say. Isn’t it true that lots of advertisers, especially in the fashion and cosmetics industry have always used highly paid models and photographers to create images of gods and goddesses in their clothing and wearing their makeup? Where are the real people there? The real people exist in the world of make-believe, the world of dreams. People spend billions for their dreams, the individual hope to be better, look better, achieve more. The important distinction is that glamorous companies spend millions of dollars shaping those dreams, tailor-made as it were, to the identity they wish to create. Victoria’s Secret is not the same as Gucci or Ralph Lauren or Donna Karan. It’s not the same puppy. It’s not the enthusiastic trio of multi-cultural synthetic stock people used over and over again for one dollar per download. The Least Common Denominator of this crumbling technological society is killing itself. There are different dreams for different identities, and when all identites are finally reduced to the Least Common Denominator, the dreams themselves will vanish, and ideas are sure to follow.
Thanks Bruno, that is a wonderful comment. And I really appreciate the time you have take to contribute. I enjoyed reading that.
Late reply, I know - but yeah Bruno, that was good! Very interesting! I’ve always *really* hated stock photos but never thought about why… such good points!
(Also, damn hilarious maddox post too)