> This is a sensible rule too--if everyone had watermarks the pages would be hideous.
So as a merchant, I have to invest a ton of money into getting quality photography of my products ... only to have my competitors use those same images for free?
So as a merchant, I have to invest a ton of money into getting quality photography of my products ... only to have my competitors use those same images for free?
If you're selling exactly what everyone else is selling the competitive point is customer service and price--I'd worry much more about that than someone copying your image. Such stores generally use the manufacturer's images anyways.
Did I say otherwise?
> why would you invest a ton of money into quality photography and then cover it up with a watermark?
To make sure that this quality photography stays as a competitive asset or if used by others, turns into advertising for my store.
> If you're selling exactly what everyone else is selling the competitive point is customer service and price
When you're selling something online, photography is most certainly a differentiator. It is also a substantial barrier to entry for the competition, because quality photography is difficult and expensive.
> Such stores generally use the manufacturer's images anyways.
Manufacturer images, when they exist, are almost always terrible. Having good photos to clearly show off the product and everything included is the difference between a buyer clicking BUY and having them wander off.
As opposed to those analog watermarks that we've all be hand-applying to our JPEGs? :)
http://images.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=watermarked+image...
Regardless, you seem to have missed the gentle humour in my original post.
I can't speak to Google Shopping, but Amazon requires a high-quality image before you can list a product. So if you spend money on the shot you don't want others stealing it. EXIF data and other non-watermark solutions are easily removed.
To fully deter your competitors from using it, you have to place the watermark in the center of the image/over the product so that they can't easily crop it out.
Now from the potential customers perspective they want to look at those quality images you took and visualize having that product, however now they have to look past/around your watermark which kind of puts a downer in their customer experience.
TLDR: So you've spent tons of money on photos to slap a watermark on top of them and hinder customer experience?
UI/UX aside - it and Amazon are the largest online sources for product promotion, information and purchasing (when Google finally launches their marketplace). Google Shopping is heavily used.
Third party sales channels represent a HUGE portion of the market, you can't afford to ignore them as a reseller. Often your only advantage in a third party channel is the quality of your data and images. Your company name is never allowed to feature prominently, and if you think good customer service will convince somebody to pay 20% more for your product than the guy who's breaking MAP policy you are kidding yourself. Good customer feedback is the minimum bar for selling successfully through third party channels, not a differentiator. In many marketplaces, sellers who have bad feedback will simply set up a new account and start over, seeding themselves with good feedback from day one.
What all this adds up to is a lose/lose for honest companies that play by the rules, make no mistake, protecting the images that you've invested capital in to create is very important.
A: We are not talking about a product here. We aren't selling an image to somebody, then slapping a watermark on it. We are creating material, at our own expense that we are using to advertise a product. Do you think that Coke should be allowed to use Pepsi's marketing as their own, or is not allowing that some sort of draconian DRM tactic too?
B: We aren't actually talking about consumers here at all - the issue is the inability to control how other companies use the materials you've created, and hold the rights to.
I'm honestly not sure what to even say to you because you aren't making any sense.
My point is quite simple: the arguments being made defending watermarks are the exact same arguments people make to defend DRM on movies and music. That doesn't mean they're wrong, of course.
The basic stance would be "that's Google's policy, deal with it", and I undestand it. At the same time, there are so many product with really awful images (for a coat, there would be no view of the inner fabric for instance). If a merchant would take the time to take relevant pictures of the right functionnalities of a product, I'd also understand wanting clients to know they're the one who cared about it. With google shopping's system, the product maker has the burden of providing decent images of it's product, or no one will care to make something better.
They usually don't. To be more specific, their photos always suck.
When you're buying something online, photos do make the difference and having good photos is what makes people click on BUY.
You'd see some really cheap goods but the image doesn't give any information about why it would be so, what trade-offs you're making. A shop can show these details and let people buy a better product if they feel like it, or buy the product without feeling betrayed at delivery.
Should every small shop care about product images ? of course no. Most of then should be OK with maker provided images. Would I value a shop showing even crappy but real images of the products ? Oh yes !