In a society that is driven by visual elements, it is standard practice to put graphics and photos on a website in order to create an aesthetically pleasing look. The challenge is to determine whether the site still looks authentic and genuine to the average consumer, which is why there is some debate about the use of stock photos versus images of real people in the firm. Do individuals relate better to pictures that they perceive to be “real?”
In some ways, consumers almost expect to see an unfamiliar generic face on a website. However, the presence of such photos is not necessarily a smart move, because some people want to build a relational connection with a firm. As noted by Austin McCraw in the article This Just Tested: Stock Images or Real People?, pictures need to be relevant. If the photo is of a person connected with the firm rather than a model, there is a greater chance of a future relationship.
Firms can use stock photos throughout their site, but they should be inserted with a purpose. McCraw notes that images must convey a certain level of value, which means that the organization must do their best to convey a message that their pictures have genuine purpose. If the goal is to simply make the site more presentable, there may not be a genuine connection between the firm and the needs of the customer.
A Washington, D.C. malpractice attorney with Bruce J. Klores & Associates, P.C. has assisted the BestLegalMarketing editorial team in identifying topics of importance to readers of this blog.