Advertising Photography

Hey guys, Andy here. I was recently asked my opinion about advertising photography and while I often express my opinion of how I believe visual literacy has declined, maybe I have not been clear as to reasons behind this.

An arresting image is one which will literally stop you in your tracks and inspire you. In regards to advertising this may be a fashion photograph attracting you to buy an item of clothing, a travel photograph spurring you to distant and new shores, or a sports photograph encouraging you to be more active. Traditionally arresting images were images of a certain quality which usually had a production value, exhibited skill in lighting and composition with the best images displaying a certain je ne sais quoi. Who wants to eat a burger if the patty looks overcooked and the bun is crushed and flat? Why would anyone dedicate limited yearly holiday if the destination shows images of a dirty bed and an unclean bathroom? When it comes to opening up your wallet and handing over hard earned cash, there needs to be a visual incentive. Or at least there used to be.

Images used in print advertising have generally remained high in the quality and production stakes while imagery online is much more varied. Reasons for the former include a more focused and less distracted experience for readers when compared to online and a longer lifespan. That is to say a print advert won’t disappear with a click and does not get automatically updated with a page refresh like it’s digital counterpart; ie there’s a correlation between quality of an image and how long you look at it. However, the in the UK at least, the print market is not what it once was; between 2010 and 2022 there was a 70% decline in printed magazines in the UK from £1bn to £309m per annum. It is not to guess where the eyeballs have migrated to; online.

Taking and sharing photography today has less friction and cost than before. Snapping a digital shot on your phone and uploading it to social media takes a handful of clicks and can be achieved in a minute. There are all manner of negatives when it comes to online and digital photography that most laypeople do not consider; the metadata (the digital data imbedded behind an image) is exploited by platforms to sell advertising, JPGs are files that undergo compression algorithms to optimise them for sharing at the expense of quality, some platforms then further compress these files, the size of an image on a screen compared to a print magazine. A photograph is a photograph, until it is not.

In addition to the quality of a JPG there are the knock on effects of contemporary online culture; platforms encourage endless scrolling and fixing your attention requiring a black hole of new content, being created by everyone with a (camera) phone; ie by anyone with no skill required. Thus the end of workout selfie, today’s lunch, your dog walk… Once upon a time no one would have seen these images but today they have been normalised and have become the baseline of what is acceptable. So why should anyone now bother taking imagery which involves care, skill or a budget? If a selfie will suffice, why hire a portrait photographer? If a fashion influencer, with an image taken in their bedroom reaches their global audience and helps sells product on behalf of a brand, why would a brand organise a shoot which potentially requires coordinating an army of creative talent including photographer, model, hair, make up, production, art direction, stylist, and location? And in an age where Photo X gains thousands of likes, surely my copy will also do the same and help make me an influencer?

Indeed the quality of a photograph is often not a priority considered against other factors which, arguably, is a reflection of contemporary society. Brand ambassadors and celebrity endorsements aside, one school of thought suggests quality photography is not authentic and less produced images, such as selfies, engender authenticity and trust. In this regard editors and critics have given way to influencers as the new arbiters of taste with longstanding risks continued to be overlooked. Consumers of content continue to ignore that follower counts may be artificially bought and inflated with bots and impression and engagement percentages are controlled by a platform’s algorithms which can be changed on a whim. Social media, having destroyed print, is increasingly pay to play which feels like a return to the traditional media but without the quality. Rather confusingly and contrary to what I have just mentioned is the notion that while an amateur photograph may be considered more authentic, there is also the trend of using AI to producing increasingly professional images (and video) to the point that it is hard to distinguish what is real and what is fake.

Early in my career I bought into social media’s concept of posting, now, now, now! I tried to walk the line between quality and quantity only to reach the conclusion it is a binary argument; I firmly believe the choice is one or the other and trying to find a middle ground means achieving neither. I deliberately slowed my workflow down to achieve the best quality images I could, in the hope that quality and differentiation to increasingly homogenous visuals and chasing likes would set me apart from the crowd. I zig’d when, not the industry but, public perception and popular opinion zag’d. 

I now worry that I have paddled against the current which has become a tidal wave bolstered by AI. Tech has flattened the playing field and my subject matter expertise, along with hosts of others, is diminished. It is not just photography which I believe is suffering; why write an email, take a portrait, organise my diary, learn an instrument, write music, paint, draw… when today AI can do it for me?

What is the (unintended) consequence of all of this? I am not sure, but rather than distrust or interrogate visuals, I am seeing increased examples of people believing everything they see and not caring about provenance. This will not end well.