6 ms·

> This is a sensible rule too--if everyone had watermarks the pages would be hideous. So as a merchant, I have to invest a ton of money into getting quality ph

by maratd 13y ago

> This is a sensible rule too--if everyone had watermarks the pages would be hideous. So as a merchant, I have to invest a ton of money into getting quality photography of my products ... only to have my competitors use those same images for free?

samworm 13y ago
"I have to invest a ton of money" did you miss the bit where this is an optional service? A service which you (and your competitors) should only use if you consider the value offered to outweigh the cost?
- nmcfarl 13y ago
  I think the parent is saying that without the ability to offer better service, via better photography than the competition, the benefits do not out way the cost for his use case.
awestroke 13y ago
If your competitors wanted to use your images, they'd just remove the watermarks and use them anyway. Also, who cares if your competitors use them? Aim for better service.
- hrktb 13y ago
  I am not sure to agree with the parent post, but I guess the point he/she tries to make is that the merchant will spend the time/money to have a product image, but this image will be reused for every other merchants selling the same product. It creates a situation where no merchant has an incentive to invest in having original or specific product images, as it won't make any difference relative to the competition, and if a product has a shitty image, tough luck. The basic stance would be "that's Google's policy, deal with it", and I undestand it. At the same time, there are so many product with really awful images (for a coat, there would be no view of the inner fabric for instance). If a merchant would take the time to take relevant pictures of the right functionnalities of a product, I'd also understand wanting clients to know they're the one who cared about it. With google shopping's system, the product maker has the burden of providing decent images of it's product, or no one will care to make something better.
  - spindritf 13y ago
    The maker/producer/distributor should provide advertising materials and they usually do. The system where every little shop selling the same thing takes its own photos of the product is terribly inefficient.
    - maratd 13y ago
      > The maker/producer/distributor should provide advertising materials and they usually do. They usually don't. To be more specific, their photos always suck. When you're buying something online, photos do make the difference and having good photos is what makes people click on BUY.
    - hrktb 13y ago
      Often a maker's product image will be a single image taken at the best angle, hiding properties of the product that are not 'sexy'. You'd see some really cheap goods but the image doesn't give any information about why it would be so, what trade-offs you're making. A shop can show these details and let people buy a better product if they feel like it, or buy the product without feeling betrayed at delivery. Should every small shop care about product images ? of course no. Most of then should be OK with maker provided images. Would I value a shop showing even crappy but real images of the products ? Oh yes !
mikeash 13y ago
In other words, you'll only sell through venues which allow you to use DRM? That's your right, of course, but I don't know that you'll get much sympathy.
- jborden13 13y ago
  The consolidation of eCommerce & product advertising to a 2 primary platforms makes this anti-competitive and an anti-trust issue. I sympathize with him as he has the right to compete and to not be unduly constrained from competition .
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Even if there really are only two primary e-commerce platforms, I would say that Google Shopping is definitely not one of them. It's a terrible experience and nobody I know uses it intentionally.
    - jborden13 13y ago
      "I would say that Google Shopping is definitely not one of them. It's a terrible experience and nobody I know uses it intentionally." UI/UX aside - it and Amazon are the largest online sources for product promotion, information and purchasing (when Google finally launches their marketplace). Google Shopping is heavily used.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        I really wouldn't have guessed. When I think e-commerce, I think Amazon, eBay, NewEgg.... Do you happen to have any numbers on it? Finding e-commerce numbers is already pretty hard, and finding numbers for an aggregator like Google Shopping seems just about impossible.
    - TrevorJ 13y ago
      Your right, they don't use it intentionally, most people still think the google shopping results are part of the organic search return.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jonknee 13y ago
No one is forcing you to pay for ads on Google Shopping so you're free to do whatever, but why would you invest a ton of money into quality photography and then cover it up with a watermark? If you're selling exactly what everyone else is selling the competitive point is customer service and price--I'd worry much more about that than someone copying your image. Such stores generally use the manufacturer's images anyways.
- maratd 13y ago
  > No one is forcing you to pay for ads on Google Shopping so you're free to do whatever Did I say otherwise? > why would you invest a ton of money into quality photography and then cover it up with a watermark? To make sure that this quality photography stays as a competitive asset or if used by others, turns into advertising for my store. > If you're selling exactly what everyone else is selling the competitive point is customer service and price When you're selling something online, photography is most certainly a differentiator. It is also a substantial barrier to entry for the competition, because quality photography is difficult and expensive. > Such stores generally use the manufacturer's images anyways. Manufacturer images, when they exist, are almost always terrible. Having good photos to clearly show off the product and everything included is the difference between a buyer clicking BUY and having them wander off.
  - Spoom 13y ago
    Use a digital watermark. You lose the advertising edge if competitors use it but you can prove that the copyright belongs to you and force them to take it down.
    - mark-r 13y ago
      Getting them to take it down is more trouble than it's worth, even if it works. You'll be playing whack-a-mole all day long. Ideally you want them not to use it in the first place, and a visible watermark accomplishes that.
    - simoncion 13y ago
Cthulhu_ 13y ago
Nope, you're covered by copyright laws there. You give Google an (implicit) license to use your photos, but not your competitors and you can send your lawyer after them.
GotNothing 13y ago
You're "investing a ton of money" into getting a high quality image, only to then turn around and slap a watermark on it, which more than likely has now downgraded the quality of the image. To fully deter your competitors from using it, you have to place the watermark in the center of the image/over the product so that they can't easily crop it out. Now from the potential customers perspective they want to look at those quality images you took and visualize having that product, however now they have to look past/around your watermark which kind of puts a downer in their customer experience. TLDR: So you've spent tons of money on photos to slap a watermark on top of them and hinder customer experience?
- pessimizer 13y ago
  As a person who has purchased things, I couldn't care less if there were a (mostly transparent) watermark on the picture of the thing, and I appreciate high quality photographs.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by maratd 13y ago

samworm 13y ago

"I have to invest a ton of money" did you miss the bit where this is an optional service? A service which you (and your competitors) should only use if you consider the value offered to outweigh the cost?

nmcfarl 13y ago
I think the parent is saying that without the ability to offer better service, via better photography than the competition, the benefits do not out way the cost for his use case.

awestroke 13y ago

If your competitors wanted to use your images, they'd just remove the watermarks and use them anyway. Also, who cares if your competitors use them? Aim for better service.

hrktb 13y ago
I am not sure to agree with the parent post, but I guess the point he/she tries to make is that the merchant will spend the time/money to have a product image, but this image will be reused for every other merchants selling the same product. It creates a situation where no merchant has an incentive to invest in having original or specific product images, as it won't make any difference relative to the competition, and if a product has a shitty image, tough luck. The basic stance would be "that's Google's policy, deal with it", and I undestand it. At the same time, there are so many product with really awful images (for a coat, there would be no view of the inner fabric for instance). If a merchant would take the time to take relevant pictures of the right functionnalities of a product, I'd also understand wanting clients to know they're the one who cared about it. With google shopping's system, the product maker has the burden of providing decent images of it's product, or no one will care to make something better.
- spindritf 13y ago
  The maker/producer/distributor should provide advertising materials and they usually do. The system where every little shop selling the same thing takes its own photos of the product is terribly inefficient.
  - maratd 13y ago
    > The maker/producer/distributor should provide advertising materials and they usually do. They usually don't. To be more specific, their photos always suck. When you're buying something online, photos do make the difference and having good photos is what makes people click on BUY.
  - hrktb 13y ago
    Often a maker's product image will be a single image taken at the best angle, hiding properties of the product that are not 'sexy'. You'd see some really cheap goods but the image doesn't give any information about why it would be so, what trade-offs you're making. A shop can show these details and let people buy a better product if they feel like it, or buy the product without feeling betrayed at delivery. Should every small shop care about product images ? of course no. Most of then should be OK with maker provided images. Would I value a shop showing even crappy but real images of the products ? Oh yes !

mikeash 13y ago

In other words, you'll only sell through venues which allow you to use DRM? That's your right, of course, but I don't know that you'll get much sympathy.

jborden13 13y ago
The consolidation of eCommerce & product advertising to a 2 primary platforms makes this anti-competitive and an anti-trust issue. I sympathize with him as he has the right to compete and to not be unduly constrained from competition .
- mikeash 13y ago
  Even if there really are only two primary e-commerce platforms, I would say that Google Shopping is definitely not one of them. It's a terrible experience and nobody I know uses it intentionally.
  - jborden13 13y ago
    "I would say that Google Shopping is definitely not one of them. It's a terrible experience and nobody I know uses it intentionally." UI/UX aside - it and Amazon are the largest online sources for product promotion, information and purchasing (when Google finally launches their marketplace). Google Shopping is heavily used.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      I really wouldn't have guessed. When I think e-commerce, I think Amazon, eBay, NewEgg.... Do you happen to have any numbers on it? Finding e-commerce numbers is already pretty hard, and finding numbers for an aggregator like Google Shopping seems just about impossible.
  - TrevorJ 13y ago
    Your right, they don't use it intentionally, most people still think the google shopping results are part of the organic search return.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

jonknee 13y ago

No one is forcing you to pay for ads on Google Shopping so you're free to do whatever, but why would you invest a ton of money into quality photography and then cover it up with a watermark? If you're selling exactly what everyone else is selling the competitive point is customer service and price--I'd worry much more about that than someone copying your image. Such stores generally use the manufacturer's images anyways.

maratd 13y ago
> No one is forcing you to pay for ads on Google Shopping so you're free to do whatever Did I say otherwise? > why would you invest a ton of money into quality photography and then cover it up with a watermark? To make sure that this quality photography stays as a competitive asset or if used by others, turns into advertising for my store. > If you're selling exactly what everyone else is selling the competitive point is customer service and price When you're selling something online, photography is most certainly a differentiator. It is also a substantial barrier to entry for the competition, because quality photography is difficult and expensive. > Such stores generally use the manufacturer's images anyways. Manufacturer images, when they exist, are almost always terrible. Having good photos to clearly show off the product and everything included is the difference between a buyer clicking BUY and having them wander off.
- Spoom 13y ago
  Use a digital watermark. You lose the advertising edge if competitors use it but you can prove that the copyright belongs to you and force them to take it down.
  - mark-r 13y ago
    Getting them to take it down is more trouble than it's worth, even if it works. You'll be playing whack-a-mole all day long. Ideally you want them not to use it in the first place, and a visible watermark accomplishes that.
  - simoncion 13y ago

Cthulhu_ 13y ago

Nope, you're covered by copyright laws there. You give Google an (implicit) license to use your photos, but not your competitors and you can send your lawyer after them.

GotNothing 13y ago

You're "investing a ton of money" into getting a high quality image, only to then turn around and slap a watermark on it, which more than likely has now downgraded the quality of the image. To fully deter your competitors from using it, you have to place the watermark in the center of the image/over the product so that they can't easily crop it out. Now from the potential customers perspective they want to look at those quality images you took and visualize having that product, however now they have to look past/around your watermark which kind of puts a downer in their customer experience. TLDR: So you've spent tons of money on photos to slap a watermark on top of them and hinder customer experience?

pessimizer 13y ago
As a person who has purchased things, I couldn't care less if there were a (mostly transparent) watermark on the picture of the thing, and I appreciate high quality photographs.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]