I usually keep my mouth shut when I see the crappy images that some large corporations are using to advertise their products, especially on the web. But, I’ve got to get this off my chest.
It seems to me that as time goes on and the economy remains stale, companies and agencies are continuing to lower their photography standards. I don’t exactly know what is to blame.
Is it the infiltration of CGI? And don’t get me wrong, CGI can be great, but most of the stuff I see isn’t.
Or, is it the growing wave of some agency creatives that seem to have adopted an all-too-common “we can fix it in Photoshop later” mantra?
Or is it the budget reductions, agency layoffs and the maxed-out workloads of most ADs?
Or is it that photographers are often expected to shoot more images in less time than in the past. Good photography still takes about the same amount of time to shoot as the film days. Seasoned pros (ADs and photographers) know the real work is in the planning, set-up, framing and lighting of the shot – not the shooting part. I even know of several agencies who now send an AD with a Canon Rebel (is an iPhone next?) to shoot things instead of hiring a professional photographer. Then they end up retouching it themselves instead of employing the help of a professional retoucher. That seems very risky to me.
Whatever the reason, the standards of quality in photography for (especially web) advertising just keep dropping.
Here is just one example I found the other day on Pandora:
Crap in. Crap out!
Now don’t get me wrong. Honda is a great company and makes great products. I have owned several Hondas in my past and loved them. They are a client of mine.
But honestly, I can’t believe this made it past the client. Seriously? Take a look at that drop shadow.That looks like it took about 5 seconds to make. And what is that reflecting into the windshield? A billboard or sign or something? Not to mention it is a studio-lit (more likely CGI lit) car placed on a dry lake bed and looks fake as all get out. I wonder if they think consumers just don’t care or won’t notice. I am sure most larger advertisers, especially car companies, have data on this subject from the boatloads of money they spend on consumer research panels. Perhaps they know something I don’t. But I can tell you, the quality of imagery certainly affects my overall feeling of quality of a product, and thus weighs into my buying decision process. For example: The Sharper Image from years gone by. This mail-order catalog took off and sales soared for years with sales of full-retail and in some case over-inflated prices on gadgets. Why? Because they had great product, great photography and a slick catalog.
Some things never change and people will always like to see quality imagery over crappy imagery. Quality imagery sells products. Crappy imagery doesn’t. Hiring the right professional photographer and giving him or her an suitable budget to shoot with is still the best way for an advertiser to ensure they are doing all they can to get the best imagery available to sell their product. I hope more and more of my potential clients realize this. Not only would it be in my and other fellow photographers best interest, but it would certainly be in the advertiser’s best interest as well.
no comments