Marketing value decreased by stock photography?

[John Scott]

http://blog.v7n.com/2006/05/31/can-y...ography-sucks/

I'm not too sure about this one. I see a lot of stock photography, and I take it as what it is - a design element.

[JamieJelly]

photo libraries have been in existence for many years prior to the internet. Companies big and small constantly use stock photography online and offline and big photo libraries aren't cheap!

If you spend a lot of time on the lower end libraries (istockphoto etc) and you notice images on a site you have seen on a library for a dollar, sure it might detract from its impact but to a regular user I am pretty sure they aren't fussed either way.

[John Scott]

http://www.d7host.com/support.php <- People I never met. Just there in make the page less lonely.

[JamieJelly]

these are the stock photography clichés causing damage!
http://www.fortymedia.com/blog/resou...graphy-cliches

[Louis]

Nice info Jamie.

[cimmeron]

do you think that the people who the sites are designed for, the consumer, actually notices how many of these images are around? I think designers and people who use the internet a lot tend to notice this type of thing more often than people who are buying services...but I might be wrong.

[Bluecircle]

This is a great topic. I have been debating wether to add stock photography or not to my website. So far I agree with the negative points here and have not added it.

[kristeejo]

Just please don't add the stock photography of the people looking up - That was really cool the first 100 times I saw it...

[JamieJelly]

I like the one of the stunning blonde in a call centre... as if anyone is gonna believe she works for your company!

[kristeejo]

Ahhh...but they want to believe she does!

[Fruit & Veg]

I keep phoning her but I always get Sanjay from Delhi.

I think stock photos are like any photos, you get good ones and bad ones. Those listed on the page Jamie linked too are sooo overused, probably because they're cheap/free.

You only notice bad stock photography on websites because you've seen them before. There's probably loads of stock photos you've seen and thought they were done by the company/designer themself and never thought twice about them.

[Janet]

I don't think stock photography of items are bad, but stock photography of people I do tend to notice. Not only do I see the same photos on multiple sites, but I just don't like the look of them personally. They look fake. If you are going to put people photos on the site, I would rather see a photo of the real people behind the computer screen. JMO.

[allreal]

You can get some original photos from new photographers with all the new upcoming stock photo sites - istockphoto.com is the one I use most. Also started using http://www.stockxpert.com/

As long as you keep a consistent feel throughout your images, the stock photos will look like they were taken for your site if done properly.

[kickstart2]

Haha, I think it's basic truth that those people in the photos are not the real staff. Heck, even my 11-year old brother knows that. It's just that it didn't really matter to me, as a customer or as a business owner. I just focused on what they have to say about their product, not how good-looking their staff look.

[jeeplaw]

The funny thing about stock photos is that they've become the norm for many sites. I've used them on some of my old sites from 5 years ago and am actually using pics of myself on one of my sites now.

I usually get the "is that really you?!?!" email or comment and then I'm told that cuteness doesn't sell if you're a guy.

Oh yea? Tell that to my paypal account several $x,xxx dollars later

I think stock photography is fine as a design element up to a certain point. When you truly want to stand out, utilizing some other outside the box photography is really necessary.