Is it possible that quality is making a comeback? A new study by author and website consultant Jakob Nielsen focuses on how people interact with images online—and finds that generic stock images are not just unappealing to viewers but also are a big turnoff.
Nielsen “points out that the random or stock images on Web sites are completely ignored by users, add more clutter to the page and don’t necessarily help from a business standpoint,” writes Nick Bilton of The New York Times in an article on the study.
“His latest eye-tracking survey found that ‘big feel-good images that are purely decorative’ are mostly ignored online,” Bilton continues, “while stock photos or generic people are also intentionally disregarded. In contrast, when users know that a picture of a person is real they will engage with the image for extended periods of time.”
Now, it may seem patently obvious that strong photos made by someone who knows what he or she is doing perform better than bland ones that are chosen because of price and not quality. But for a while there, price took precedent—because getting photos for cheap was such a new phenomenon and because the recession resulted in a lot of cost cutting, with photo budgets taking a particularly hard hit. But if business is really about the bottom line, then you can’t afford to turn your back on compelling photography. Photography is an essential part of the storytelling and seduction process. Always has been and always will be.
And we’re not the only ones who think so. Nielsen’s advice to anyone trying to move products, services, or content online? “Invest in good photo shoots: a great photographer can add a fortune to your Web site’s business value.”
.
.
“People ignore generic photos online”
Is it possible that quality is making a comeback? A new study by author and website consultant Jakob Nielsen focuses on how people interact with images online—and finds that generic stock images are not just unappealing to viewers but also are a big turnoff.
Nielsen “points out that the random or stock images on Web sites are completely ignored by users, add more clutter to the page and don’t necessarily help from a business standpoint,” writes Nick Bilton of The New York Times in an article on the study.
“His latest eye-tracking survey found that ‘big feel-good images that are purely decorative’ are mostly ignored online,” Bilton continues, “while stock photos or generic people are also intentionally disregarded. In contrast, when users know that a picture of a person is real they will engage with the image for extended periods of time.”
Now, it may seem patently obvious that strong photos made by someone who knows what he or she is doing perform better than bland ones that are chosen because of price and not quality. But for a while there, price took precedent—because getting photos for cheap was such a new phenomenon and because the recession resulted in a lot of cost cutting, with photo budgets taking a particularly hard hit. But if business is really about the bottom line, then you can’t afford to turn your back on compelling photography. Photography is an essential part of the storytelling and seduction process. Always has been and always will be.
And we’re not the only ones who think so. Nielsen’s advice to anyone trying to move products, services, or content online? “Invest in good photo shoots: a great photographer can add a fortune to your Web site’s business value.”
.
.