3 ms·

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 bett

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 !

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 !