Where have all the brands gone?
Your business needs a website. Your website needs images – or at least content. Short of hiring a photographer, some models and scouting out a location, where do you find images of, say, people working in an office? Or a photograph that illustrates a sector of your business?
Since you don’t want to be stealing any images or content, the most obvious place to get images and other media for your site is a free stock library. There are a number of them on the internet that allow you to freely browse, download and use (with little restriction) any image that the good hearted photographers of the world have contributed. This goes for photographs, vector images, sound clips, video and other content.
The problem lies in the shear abundance of this … stuff. If you spend any amount of time at all looking at libraries – which I have – you will start to spot stock images popping up everywhere. The same image that appears in a magazine ad may be the one another business has used on their website! There really is nothing wrong with using free images that the photographer has donated to the World Wide community. Few people have the funds, time or resources to create a unique image every time they need one. The cost of hiring a photographer, lighting rental, location seeking, hiring models and the time to get the shot done vastly outweigh the benefits of having one simple shot of two people talking at a desk.
Rather than thinking that stock libraries put photographers out of work (they are the ones shooting this stuff after all), the free media being made available by artists of all kinds, is giving some artists an avenue to distribute their work (on the paying sites) and a chance to give back to others – share and share alike. It creates a positive sense of community among creatives.
The same goes with webdesign. Free websites are available almost anywhere, but web designers are not short of sites to build. Video clips, vectors and sound clips available freely don’t harm the video production, illustration or music industries.
The bottom line is your brand. How do you wish your business to portray itself through the use of images and content? If money saved with a quick image is worth more to you than the investment into a unique photograph that you own the rights to, then free is the answer. For many, building a website and investing three figures into it is not a viable option. As long as the business owner is aware of the brand and the effect this cost cutting is having, then a free website or template may be the best option. But that same owner should also be aware that a bespoke website will stand out from the pack, be easier to maintain in the long run and enforce the brand in a much stronger way. The investment into a set of images that you are able to use at will in print materials and web content will be an investment in your company brand and in your own future.
The web may become a glut of free websites, free images, free videos and a wealth of over-used content, but you can stick your head above the crowd and make your business seen with unique content and professionally produced media that nobody else has. It’s an investment worth considering.
After all, your business is meant to be unique. Isn’t it?
I liked it. So much useful material. I read with great interest.
I like the article it has some good points to it but to share my take, I understand the use of stock imagery and have in many instances myself used stock imaging sites to fill photo and graphic needs of a website.
I do see them all over the web now, in some instances looking and thinking I used that same image. I agree that stock images are a great solution for a small business and organizations with lower budgets as it will help to liven up the designs with a smaller investment. It is when I see larger companies use them that I feel it is a bad move.
There is something to be said for original imagery, something showing your true look, branding, location and work is far more valuable than some photo pulled off a stock photo library. If you have the resources I suggest getting your own photos done specifically for the design. This also lets you better control the message and imaging of whatever it is you are designing for because you can frame the shoot as you need it and get the shots you require.
As for the part of the article discussing putting a photographer out of business, there are some misconceptions and some truths to this. First yes it does very much take away the income stream from the photographer, instead of getting $1500 for a full days shoot the photographer will only get $2 – 5 an image from the shoot. The hope is that over time it will make up for the loss. Next if you notice it is rare to see new stock photos being updated regularly this is because most photographers do not have the money to pay models for the shoots to create these photos, so at some point I am curious if it will dry up all together.
The flip side of the photographers job loss is that most photographers I know work freelance for publications or as staff members for media outlets in both cases the photo of the couple in front of the home is not the shoot they are usually doing anyway.
The part that is really making things difficult is the over abundance of cheap digital cameras allowing anyone with no experience or artistic vision to take photos and try to sell them creating more competition in the market place often unqualified. Stock imagery sites have gone to manually reviewing photos as they are uploaded to look at quality of the work where some just allow anyone to post up and sell any photo they have. This is going to create a large database of images of which only 1/3 will really be usable increasing the time it takes to find suitable images.
In short, I feel it is overtaking the web, and though I agree with the use of stock imagery in certain situations I feel that the use of original commissioned artwork would be better for any client/brand.