I’ve seen the following unfortunate situation unfold countless times for nearly a decade in advertising courses I’ve taught : A student will come up with a highly engaging, on-strategy, traffic-stopping campaign idea for a creative assignment. Then, execute it with visual images that are as well matched and powerful as Lady Gaga singing opera.
Sure, a well composed photograph from one of the many stock photo websites looks great in a layout at first glance. But, upon closer examination of the ad and its concept, the image often does more to blunt the idea than amplify it.
Imagine if there were a website that offered stock concepts. Think ‘Corbisideas.com’ for instance. Type in “Funny, toothpaste, whitening.” Hit search and bingo!!! A page full of creative ideas ready to go. Now imagine coming to class and seeing another student’s work with the same idea from the same site. Royalty-free concepts???
Now I’m not denigrating stock photography. The quality and selection of photography by way of a “click” has become quite impressive. And royalty-free stock has long since shrugged off the perception as generic and common. Full disclosure… many of the outstanding images we see in advertising, both online and off, use stock photography. And to great effect. As a result of today’s shrinking ad budgets, stock is often the only viable solution.
The point I’m making is this: a concept that’s highly original deserves nothing less than an image of the same quality. Your photograph may be original or taken from stock and Photoshopped until its origin is unrecognizable, but you should settle for nothing less than a final execution for a wicked concept that’s wicked as well.
Remember this… when you finally get that interview with the Creative Director of an agency you’d kill to work for, the last thing you want to hear during a review of your portfolio is “Is that picture from ThinkStock or Corbis?”