The Worst Stock Photo Ad Ever
We all know the Clich√©s that are ever present with stock photography. It’s bad, but it can be forgiven. The same can be said about stock photography advertisements in design publications. They are inevitable, and we don’t really expect them to be particularly creative. The only thing the stock company has to do is combine one of their photos with a mildly interesting headline and the ad will have served its purpose. If it is lucky, the next time I am forced to use a stock photo I will remember their name. It is really pretty simple, which makes the following ad all the more awe inspiring. When I saw this ad, my jaw dropped in absolute astonishment that something this bad could be created at all, let alone be published in a publication targeted towards creative people. Have a look for yourself, but I am warning you, this is bad…
Here is the ad. You can click on it to see a bigger version. Let’s not even read the headline yet. Let’s just look at the photo. So many questions. Why is this girl so happy? Is she running in the tall weeds? Is she jumping? Are those shorts a little too short? What does the barb wire fence add to the image? Did she jump over it? Isn’t that cloud a little bit awkward right behind the girl’s head? Most importantly, why is half her leg missing? Maybe the headline will help answer our questions…
The headline says “All the images, half the price.” Now this is going to sound crude, but the only connection I can make between that headline and the photo is that the images are *half* price, and this girl only has *half* a leg. I am not trying to be cute or disrespectful, that is actually the thought that crossed my mind. What other connection can be made? Surely, that isn’t what they are trying to say. Right? You can read the rest of the copy, but this ad can only lead you to one conclusion: don’t ever buy a stock photo from Comstock. Don’t even visit their site hoping to find anything better than a half legged girl jumping over a fence. They should be banned from advertising in any design publication, and fined for wasting our time. How in the world does something like this make it to print? The person who comes up with the best new headline for this ad wins a prize…
June 28th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Not to burst your bubble, but she’s not missing half of her leg. It’s just a bad camera angle where her bent leg is lost behind her thigh. The disturbing part is that she’s either leaping through the air, or she’s not part of the photograph at all. It looks like she was photographed crossing the finish line in her highschool relay race, and then “Photoshopped” into this field. Her foot appears to be bending as if it’s landing on a solid track instead of ankle deep grass. She might be casting a shadow, but I can’t be sure. If this is faked, then it definitely shouldn’t be on a stock photography website. Either way, Comstock sells “images” at “half the price” for a reason, whatever it may be.
June 29th, 2006 at 2:38 am
the colours remind me of crappy microsoft!!!
June 29th, 2006 at 7:29 am
I definitely see a shadow in the grass…something or someone was there. I agree about the leg and poor camera angles. I see sloppy edge clipping, and one fluffy cloud is terribly conspicuous in that sky — they must have been covering up bad clipping or a background behind her hair that caused it to look funny on a blue background. When they did so, they needed to add other clouds and — duh — clouds have shadows too.
If I were to “recover” this ad for Comstock, the headline would be something like “If your photos look like this, you definitely need Comstock’s stock photos!”
So that’s my “serious” headline.
June 29th, 2006 at 8:51 am
I just didn’t get this ad but I see your point. As an alternative headline, how about “Images that don’t cost an arm and leg ‚Äì just a leg” that’s sort of half price…
June 29th, 2006 at 9:46 am
The thing I hate most about these ads is those little clippy things they put on your eyes so you can’t blink. They just chafe. There should be a law.
It’ll take five seconds to find the original of this image. Did for me, anyway. Maybe that’d be a good launching point for wild speculation rather than a bad color-shifted scan.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:42 am
maybe because she’s only wearing half a shirt and shorts? Instead of a long sleeve and pants? People shouldn’t have to work so hard to “get it”. Her expression is also kinda creepy.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
“All the stock company has to do is combine one of their photos with a mildly interesting headline and the ad will have served its purpose.”
Well… that’s essentially what they did. They just picked a really awkward photo.
Somehow advertising aimed toward the people that create it is even worse than “normal” advertising. Why do we allow PRINT, CA, and all those others to be so crammed full of t-e-r-r-i-b-l-e advertisements?!
June 29th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
This photo does look like two different photos merged together, but they do have other pictures of this girl running through fields . . . sorry Adrian, I couldn’t help but to check the site. Her other leg also makes an appearance in the other photos as well. The multitude of mergers aren’t in the other photos, but I assume they liked the mood and “expression” of this photo.
June 29th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
hmmm. I reckon she’s “Jumping for Joy” out in the middle of nowhere b/c she’s saving so much money on crappy images. Why she had to run so far to express her good fortune is the mystery.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Headline: In our industry, bad Photoshop=death.
Next time, find just the right the picture at Comstock.
Headline:Just because you could make it in Photoshop doesn’t mean you should. Next time, get a real picture. At Comstock.
(Except, of course, Comstock’s selection also sucks.)
July 9th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Headline: Go crazy.
Subheadline: Jump in one leg. Run everywhere. Smile at anything.
Tag: Now you can go crazy using non-expensive stock photography from ComStock1700k.com.
July 14th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Su said:
Way to be sarcastic. Of course no one is making us look at it, but the whole point of an ad is to make the audience want to look at it. The whole if-you-don’t-like-it-turn-the-page thing doesn’t really work in this context.
Secondly, the mere fact that people look at this ad and immediately think photoshop is the problem. In the end, it doesn’t matter if the picture is real or not; if it’s such a weird picture that people can pick out problems with it right of the bat, comstock shouldn’t be using it to advertise their collection.
July 20th, 2006 at 10:31 am
“You won’t feel the pain, either!”
Hilarious rant. Thanks for reminding me why I spend hours looking through stock photos…to avoid making the wrong choice…
July 22nd, 2006 at 6:27 am
Hi readers!
Good sense of humor I would say.Even when I thought abt the “half price” line n it’s relation with the photograph,the same thought crossed my mind.Well,what these photostock guys are tryin to convey is probably ‘u can jump with joy -just like this gal if you purchase from us,half the price!’.Different people have different interpretations abt different things,rite?So,y care too much?
July 28th, 2006 at 7:54 am
She was mauled by a psycho bovine and impaled on the post.
A dark concept, I know, but it seemed a nice contrast to the image.
July 28th, 2006 at 7:55 am
Another thought for the headline:
Half the Shirt,
Half the Shorts,
Half the Leg,
Half the Price!
August 5th, 2006 at 9:20 am
comstock… bad! half the price for not even half a good image