I forget where, maybe the Wall Street Journal, but some newspaper had an entire article on companies losing branding quality due to internet stock photo usage (and many companies using the same stock photos).
This is pretty common though; I'm not sure why it deserves an Engadget article. Neither company did anything wrong, per se.
Title: Boys (8-10) sitting at desks with laptops in classroom, portrait Image #: 200193762-001 License type: Royalty-free Photographer: Thomas Barwick Collection: Digital Vision Credit: Thomas Barwick
It's just what happens when you decide to go super cheap with design, photography, and brand, 'specially in this day and age of the instantly-informed public.
The CD collection which this image belongs to is $600 and contains 50 images, so this image cost them $12, assuming they could find a use for the other images.
Setting up your own photo shoot would have cost way more than $600. It is a question of branding. The marketing people at Asus should have paid for exclusive use (still cheaper than rolling your own) or at least have checked prior use...
Honestly though, it's not like 99.9% of the people being marketed to would notice.
Anyone pr their dog can take a picture of this "quality", suitable for the web, with a $100 camera. I'd do it for a $5. Companies get so tied up with "professionalism" but the standards of "professionalism" change as technology improves.
They're stupid to use stock footage when an original photo would have taken any random employee 5 minutes at a school or home.
Yeah, it's not like there are model releases or anything involved. You can totally just go into any school and start taking pictures of kids and use them anywhere you want for your business.
And I don't see what the big deal is about this. It's kind of funny they used the same photo, but the use of stock photography is very common. There's nothing to explain about it. And believe it or not, getting good photos is not as simple as just walking into a school or whatever with your cannon powershot.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Haha, that's amazing!
I want wait to see how this unfolds.
I forget where, maybe the Wall Street Journal, but some newspaper had an entire article on companies losing branding quality due to internet stock photo usage (and many companies using the same stock photos).
This is pretty common though; I'm not sure why it deserves an Engadget article. Neither company did anything wrong, per se.
Definitely. Either way I gotta say MSI did the better shop job.
Yeah, MSI looks more natural but the the ASUS guy is blushing so hard that he looks like he's in love with his notebook!
http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?contractUrl=1&language=en-US&family=creative&p=200193762-001&src=standard
Title: Boys (8-10) sitting at desks with laptops in classroom, portrait
Image #: 200193762-001
License type: Royalty-free
Photographer: Thomas Barwick
Collection: Digital Vision
Credit: Thomas Barwick
It's just what happens when you decide to go super cheap with design, photography, and brand, 'specially in this day and age of the instantly-informed public.
Those cheap asshats deserve this article.
"License type: Royalty-free"
Geez eh, cheap indeed.
The CD collection which this image belongs to is $600 and contains 50 images, so this image cost them $12, assuming they could find a use for the other images.
Setting up your own photo shoot would have cost way more than $600. It is a question of branding. The marketing people at Asus should have paid for exclusive use (still cheaper than rolling your own) or at least have checked prior use...
Honestly though, it's not like 99.9% of the people being marketed to would notice.
There's no such thing called bad publicity.. this thing is just making us talk even more about their brands..
Anyone pr their dog can take a picture of this "quality", suitable for the web, with a $100 camera. I'd do it for a $5. Companies get so tied up with "professionalism" but the standards of "professionalism" change as technology improves.
They're stupid to use stock footage when an original photo would have taken any random employee 5 minutes at a school or home.
@LarryLarryLarry
Yeah, it's not like there are model releases or anything involved.
You can totally just go into any school and start taking pictures of
kids and use them anywhere you want for your business.
And I don't see what the big deal is about this. It's kind of funny they used the same photo, but the use of stock photography is very common. There's nothing to explain about it. And believe it or not, getting good photos is not as simple as just walking into a school or whatever with your cannon powershot.