Which Stock Photos Convert Higher? | Hacker News Reader

Which Stock Photos Convert Higher?

nickkolenda.com

35 pointsnkolenda12 comments

> Brain Images from MRI or fMRI...

... were shown to boost the credibility of neuroscience-related articles[0], and nothing in the paper hints at reasons why it could be generalized to other topics.

It'll be fun to watch brain images pop up on the sites of people who will have taken that post at face value :-)

————

0. http://www.antoniocasella.eu/dnlaw/McCabe_2008.pdf

Lot's of words, fancy images, tips and conclusions. But no actual data.

Citing research papers from 1979 to decide which photo converts better on a website? Dude, just show me the data of an a/b test.

It reads like NLP bullshit through and through. I flagged.

Me too. This is what made me flag it:

"I’m always flabbergasted how small—seemingly irrelevant—changes can make a big impact

If that was true, the author would have told us about those big impacts he witnessed. I think it's all made out of thin air.

If he just said "here is a couple of research papers that might be relevant to photos on websites" I would have no problem with the article. But they way it is presented, it's not HN worthy.

This is a topic I am very interested in. I studied many a/b tests on the impact of photos and other elements on conversion rations. The impact is usually surprisingly small.

Same here, I enjoy A/B testing often, along with analyzing numbers and data. When I opened this article and saw the A/B/C image at the top, I was excited to see the results. Then... nothing.

The issue I have with this sort of obsession in optimizing conversion is this: shouldn't you be primarily concerned with building a product that legitimately benefits and gives back to both users and society as a whole as opposed to making something that sells as fast as possible? Both the data and psychology driven philosphies have this sense that your work exists to squeeze more money out of people instead of to create something meaningful. Put that extra time and thought into a better product and everyone wins.

If your product benefits people at all, then making it better helps more people, but using marketing to sell faster also helps more people.

It's not a dichotomy. Products can be good or well-marketed or both or neither.

Becoming versed in this kind of conversion magic doesn't mean not being 'concerned with building a product that legitimately benefits and gives back to both users and society as a whole'. In fact, using techniques that (admittedly superficially) increase traction for a product of legitimate merit it will significantly multiply the benefits of the product.

I once worked for a company that never used stock photographs; all the website images were of staff, taken and used with their permission on work premises.

Not only did it give a sense of pride and ownership of the site, internally, but we could also add captions like "John S, St Louis Office" and had feedback that visitors appreciated the personal touch.

Other benefits included absence of licensing fees and ability to take custom photos with staff showing the products.

Including the name is a great idea. I feel like stock photos of business offices and people are a turn off. Anytime I see them on a site, I figure it's a basement operation being run by amateurs. Why are they posting a photo of a random boardroom and not their own? My only conclusion, they have no office. Why are they showing a photo of a random woman with a headset? They must have no dedicated support in house.

Real photos always stand out. If I'm looking for a webhost, and they show an actual photo of their datacenter, with one of their staff members standing inside, that's a huge plus. They actually have physical access to the datacenter. If I need something, they can get it done. They're not just reselling someone else's service.

This article references a number of different studies, but I really wanted to see some hard numbers with these concepts being used.

Show me that someone pointing at that newsletter button is 25% more effective than a photo of someone with their arms crossed. Or, show me that smiling asian male in a suit will out perform an attractive business woman in casual clothes.

Take some photos of the same person, in the same clothes, one with them pointing at the call to action, another with them looking at the call to action, another with them standing in a neutral pose, and another with arms crossed. Show me those numbers, and which increases sales.

Otherwise, I'm full of doubt.

http://www.nickkolenda.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/pointi...

That image freaks me out, it looks like an overly confident guy that is pretending he's well off, and it looks like he's about to give me some awful speech about the 10 secrets to success. I wouldn't want to donate to a kickstarter with that image, because I don't want that guy to get my money (even though it's a stock photo, I associate him with the project).

Then, I look at another example...

http://www.nickkolenda.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/stock-...

The article says the asian male is probably best, because he's asian, and smiling more. I'd disagree again, I prefer A, the guy looks more down to earth in the casual clothes, and as a late twenties male, he looks very relatable. That's the kind of person I'd want to donate money towards.

This is all speculation though, we need real world numbers, otherwise this article is pointless.

Do varying rates of effectiveness motivate us to choose something more relevant to our product, rather than stock images?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com