No to stock photography

The issue of stock photography was recently touched upon during the Greater Manchester Transport congestion "incident."

It created a little bit of a storm as it purported to be showing locals but actually showed US models although it is not entirely clear.

It might be wrong, but is this such a shock? During my lunch break I saw at least 2 adverts that could have used stock models and "illustrative" cases and I have not heard, as these are long running commercials, any protests.

One was "I was working in the storeroom (in heels) and tripped and so had a right to claim the compensation" that she naturally"deserved.""

This is a serious problem as the more people claim, whether right or wrong, the more premiums go up.

The difference could be we expect some adverts to be all front. But we expect Greater Manchester Transport to have higher standards, or it is a chink in their argument and it was exploited by opposition to the charge.

What is not in doubt for me is that companies that use stock images for their communications lose out.

The number of sites that do not show the directors and staff but deliriously people shaking hands or glowing with unabated glee at their computer screens communicates that the Internet site or mailer is not really reflective of the company. This in turn brings in questions about the copy.

This is not a fair comment in some ways as many companies communicate honestly. However, with all the competition to be heard and to be kept being heard transparency and tangible references are key.

Note to previous entries. Creative Concern the design agency at the centre of the congestion row has stated that SKV was not responsible for the "case studies."