Doll marketing photography: Do Companies Confuse or Mislead?

I've heared this multipe times about DZ - their faceups often seem to arrive looking totally different to on the site - especially the pale lips problem.
On the other hand, I'm waiting for a WS Cosmo from them (no faceup!) and they had plenty of enhanced and non/minimally enhanced photos of the head and body and photos of a blank head from multiple angles which was really helpful when i was making my decision. So well done to them on that. ^_^.

 

The only companies I have ever dealt with are Volks, Fairyland, DZ, DOD, Dollheart and Leekeworld.

Volks - Like many others have already stated, are rather odd about photographing their dolls (and outfits too, most of the time). While they normally don't show the dolls and items at their best, they do show them realistically, at the least. It's really a wonderful surprise every time I order something from Volks, it's always at least three times better than I was expecting based on their photography.

Fairyland - I don't really see them exaggerating their products, but I do see them neglecting to really point out the quality of their items, similar to Volks. And I find they often times don't show enough angles of their products, even when there's nothing to hide. Which I always find odd, I guess the photographer just doesn't think about doing certain angles? I can easily say I've done that myself.

Dollzone - I've never actually bought from them, but I have had real life friends who have and we've gone through all the steps together. Seeing the picture versus the items that arrived were a bit different and a little disappointing. They really seem to make the resin look a lot less shiny than it really is, which I'm guessing is the lighting and the face-up seemed to be a lot more washed out and faded looking than the official pictures. And for wigs, their website pictures don't seem to show wig color correctly, either. The ones of the website look a lot brighter than the actual product, I think they use brighter dyes on their photographed wigs than their standard quality ones, plus I have seen an inconsistency in color between two of the same color wig by them, which I imagine can't be helped since each one is dyed differently, or they're using different lighting for different things.

DOD - I do not trust their photography, at all. Not only has a friend of mine pretty much 'gotten screwed' on what she expected to be getting from her doll, I've heard many other owner's say the same. They really seem to be the perfect and most extreme example of misleading photography in BJDs to date.

Dollheart - I think they mislead a tiny bit. I've been a bit disappointed in some of the items I've bought from them quality wise. While it's still pretty comparable to the official photo in structure, some of their angles don't show clothes or shoes correctly. Sometimes there are loose threads or an uneven stitch here or there and the material of their shoes seems to be a lot thinner than the pictures imply by how blown-up the image is. While it's not horrible, I do find it a bit misleading so I figured it was worth mentioning.

Leekeworld - I think they are another company who misleads a bit. The colors shown in some of their wigs is a bit different compared to the real product, as well as quality. And it's kind of obvious that they dress up their images and show them really at their absolute best (I really love the fact they do it so obviously, so they're not really trying to be sneaky about it), and most of the time your wig will not be an absolute best quality one. I can't say I blame them, I'd rather see an item at it's best to know what it is capable of being like then seeing not as well and wondering if it could work. There are times I've wondered if I'm even receiving a Leekeworld wig as it seems so different, but with a bit of brushing up and a little clip they normally can look like the picture.

In a nutshell - I think almost all companies (and I mean all, not just BJD companies) mislead a bit, but most don't do so very drastically. The amount most companies do mislead can easily be forgiven and a lot of the time it's understandable. Specially considering with online sales, showing your item at it's absolute best is very important if you are to get any sales at all, I think people need to just remember before making a purchase online that you are buying based on a picture and that picture may not be totally correct, or rather, not to buy based solely on how the picture has made you imagine the product, but to expect to get an item that is a bit different. Plus not all companies mislead in a way to rip you off, some seem to mislead in a way to please.

-Edit- Whoops, this seems to have come out looking more like a company review than part of a debate.

 

You guys all DO know that colors always show up differently on everybody's monitors, right? An item that looks totally wrong-colored on one monitor, it can look just-like-real-life on another monitor. Digital photography is an inexact science at best. And you also know that wigs & clothes can look different when you get them out of the box than they do in a catalogue or model-photo, because they've just been shipped through the mail squished into a small container & may need a little TLC before wearing, right?

Anybody who goes through life expecting reality to imitate advertising, or expecting reality to be perfectly wearable right out of the box, has a rude awakening or two in store for them. With time & experience you learn to gauge approximately how much is/isn't being shown by a picture, & what quality/reality you can expect from that seller or manufacturer. If it's not a company you're used to, there can be a little gamble, yes; it's the same risk you take buying anything sight-unseen.

(I'll let you in on another dirty little deceptive sales secret: Just because the picture on the cereal-box shows only 5 big Cheerios in a spoon, it doesn't mean that there are only 5 in the box. XD)

 

Having done a little bit of commercial photography ( a looong time ago). Sometimes the photographer is given a "prototype" of the expected final product, this might be a OOAK highly crafted prototype that is produced long before the actual production process has started. The photographer might be taking a photo of something that may go through several levels of changes

"this works lovely for this material, hand made, but in production we need to use this OTHER material and a different process so we'll have to make design changes..." or "Market testing revealed that people love the product but they want to pay $X per item... however making it the way it was originally crafted costs $x2 so we'll have to reduce the features so it will be within or only slightly higher than the expected price range."

I don't know if this is what happens in the BJD world, but it certainly applies to things like toys (for kids), technical tools, software, etc.


and then there are frozen dinners, do those EVER look anything like the photo on the package?

 

That can be true for a lot of companies and people, but not all. There have been cases where people (myself included) have ordered three of the same item and each one is a different color, which really says more about the quality than the photography or monitor colors, I suppose. Thus I guess this is irrelevant, but your post made it come to mind.

But that doesn't change the fact that some companies do purposely mislead, in BJDs and in everything else. I find it odd that anyone would expect otherwise of a company, really. It is a business, after all. It's whole basis is to make money, and dressing up their product is part of that. Any item you buy online, dolls or otherwise, is a gamble. Almost everything will look different in a picture than it does in real life, even a puddle can look a lot more beautiful in a picture than it does in real life through next to no editing. Though I don't think that excuses the way some companies try and twist their photos to hide things, such as a pointy nose on a sculpt.

*Rambles on* And another thing people probably need to consider is while a lot of items are sold by professional looking websites, a lot of products are still made by hand. Which means every product will be a bit different. And even things not made by hand, the items will still most likely be different. Such as resin colors based on the different mixture of materials on a day-to-day basis, receiving an item that doesn't look like the picture isn't so surprising when you take these things into account, I think a few people forget to really go through this checklist before clicking the 'buy' button, which is just setting yourself up for disappointment upon arrival.

 

Some promo photo's are so washed out that it's kinda irritating because you then depend on actual owner photo's to make the final call on buying the doll or just skipping over it. I'm usually looking for owner photo's before I decide on to buy or not.

When Fairyland released Leah, I couldn't really tell anything about her sculpt from their photo's... even when adjusting my monitor brightness. Leah owner photo's were much clearer and showed the sculpt better. Luts KD Bory photo's are the same story for me anyway, they kinda blur the profile of the sculpt enough for me to question if really want a Bory or not. Owner pics make me want him, but his company photo's make him look bland and boring.


Now, Domadoll had some adorable, crisp photo's of Venus and her too cute muffin top when she was released. The Real Puki promo photo's really captured the sculpt and those are 9cm dolls! Tiny!

 

I calibrated my monitor for digital photography (was printing through a 3rd party) and I noticed that my monitor was way too blue out of the factory. And demonstrating that my gamer's LCD sucks at color reproduction; I have a second monitor with less response and better color to compare to (and +50% cost).

My friends' LCDs were also too blue out of the factory, so I think the manufacturers deliberately do it to make the monitors seem brighter.

Dollmore and Soom deliberately seem to fill their photos with bloom. It makes the images more artsy (I suppose...) but doesn't do much for helping examine detail. Mecha Angel Meisa's images irritate me to no end--it looks like white skin, but is it normal or what?

The reason TV dinner photos look so different is because most food photography in advertising isn't actually showing you food. Think Crisco ice cream (that never melts), Elmer's Glue milk for cereal (that never gets soggy) and cold hamburger patties painted with oil (to always look fresh off the grill).

 

Only had experience with Volks Dollfie Dreams, and from my experience photos can be right on or total miss. Especially when it comes to showing off their faces. But that's just my opinion on it lol

 

Now that you mentioned it, I requested DZ Clovera's faceup on my DZ Orlando sculpt. The lip gloss was brighter pink and fuller than pictured on Clovera, which I don't mind since the effect was quite nice. However, I think they made the brow liner (or whatever it was. it's a line between the brow and the eyes) too harsh, so instead of the soft charcoal pictured on the site, it now looks like she does Peking opera >.< Ok I'm not too fussed about that since I like giving her bangs so I can cover that up. But yes, I empathize with what you said about spending $50 on an unsatisfactory face-up.

Stock image: http://www.doll-zone.com/pro_detail.asp?id=237
Mine: http://www.denofangels.com/forums/s...ught-I-d-live-to-see-the-day-Dollzone-Orlando

 

The eyebrows really don't look that much darker to me. >A<; (And really I don't think they look bad at all, certainly not "Peking opera".) IMO, that looks like a reasonable level of differentness to expect. They've probably got several different faceup artists, and it's already hard enough to reproduce your OWN work perfectly, let alone someone else's. That's why all the sites have little warnings about how things might not be exactly the same.

 

My elfdoll Soah's face is yellow. Yeah, yellowing is a natural process, but her body isn't yellow. Nor is her headcap. Maybe it's a stupid mistake, maybe it's just whatever sealer they used on her faceup at the factory. I hope it's the latter. I hate how mismatched she looks!

 

1) Do you feel that some companies mislead, exaggerate, or confuse through their use of photos in advertising their dolls?

I feel like some of the less expensive companies show their dolls sitting or standing when in fact they arrive badly strung, or strung with elastic meant for a doll the next size down, and have to be re-strung with appropriate elastic or even have their joints sueded before they can do what they're pictured doing.

2) Have you ever received a doll that you felt was not as shown in its photographs (aside from resin color or obvious defects like breakage)? What feature(s) was/ were misrepresented?

I received two 60cm dolls, both from the same company, that had the above problem. One of them had her eyebrows on crooked too, which bugged me almost as much as the fact that I couldn't pose her at ALL and had to re-string the boy. However, my MSD from the same company was strung with the correct string and poses relatively well, so maybe it's just an SD problem.

On the other hand, sometimes differences between photographs and reality result in a positive experience. I bought Larten at a convention... and I never would have otherwise, because his company photo positively terrifies me. When it comes to things like faceups, a lot can depend on wigs, eyes and lighting so I can understand more if a faceup looks different than advertised as opposed to stringing problems.

3) If you answered "yes" to (2), did you tell the doll company and were you satisfied with the response?

No. I didn't buy from the company directly (JunkySpot instead) so I couldn't really. Besides that, I'm a very docile person when it comes to these things--even if it's the only area where that word actually fits me! I hate to even send meals back when restaurants get my order wrong; I feel like I'm being a fussy/complain-y customer. Also, after talking to people about it, I learned that this was a common problem with this company, so even if I had said something, since it's apparently par for the course I doubt it would have done any good.

4) Do you feel that misleading photographs are a serious problem, or do you feel that companies aren't to be blamed for wanting to make their product look good ? Or, alternatively, do you think that there are plenty of other places to see different photographs of a doll (or even the doll in person at conventions, meetups and so forth) and therefore buyers should simply educate themselves more before they buy? Other thoughts?

I've never been a fan of the whole "Buyer Beware" idea. Any responsible seller should take care to accurately represent their product, doll or otherwise. Companies are responsible for what they do, and if they misrepresent their item, the blame falls on them. Of course you should do research, but the burden should never be entirely on the buyer to make sure they are getting what they are being promised.

5) Do you think it would help to have a standard format of photos that would be shown by companies in addition to their pretty advertising photos - for example, pictures of unfaceupped heads taken from the front and side; body comparison photos showing unclothed bodies in a few established positions, like sitting and standing) or do you feel that enough companies already offer these?

Absolutely. Not everyone buys fullsets or faceups, LE or standard. I understand that companies want to upsell and consequently flood the listing with the most expensive form of the doll, but they should consider lower-budget buyers too. At least have one set of basic photos of dolls who are strung the way they will be on arrival.

Please make your responses as general as possible so this doesn't devolve into company-bashing.

 

1) Do you feel that some companies mislead, exaggerate, or confuse through their use of photos in adve
rtising their dolls?

Yes, some companies do. It's not only about light that changes features or angles never shown which are horrible at home, it's also about skin tones. They always seem A and end up being B.

2) Have you ever received a doll that you felt was not as shown in its photographs (aside from resin color or obvious defects like breakage)? What feature(s) was/ were misrepresented?

Yes, I have recently had this experience. I call it a VERY bad one. It was the nose, the mouth, the eyes!!! Everything! The eyes were uneven, the mouth was crooked, the nose was too big... I think it's all about the make up, the lighting efects and the angles they used for the promo pics.

3) If you answered "yes" to (2), did you tell the doll company and were you satisfied with the response?

I never told them, I sold the doll right away. I had had enough fighting with the company about the shippind delay so I knew they'd do nothing.

4) Do you feel that misleading photographs are a serious problem, or do you feel that companies aren't to be blamed for wanting to make their product look good ? Or, alternatively, do you think that there are plenty of other places to see different photographs of a doll (or even the doll in person at conventions, meetups and so forth) and therefore buyers should simply educate themselves more before they buy? Other thoughts?

I think it's normal to try to make your items look as best as possible, but it isn't right. One cannot mislead a customer because it'll result in said customer never buying again. If you want your goods to look right, sculp them right ^^U As easy as it sounds. It's not a customer's duty to go and search for pics elsewhere, what about dolls that aren't pictured often? What about limiteds or dolls that haven't gotten to anybody yet?

5) Do you think it would help to have a standard format of photos that would be shown by companies in addition to their pretty advertising photos - for example, pictures of unfaceupped heads taken from the front and side; body comparison photos showing unclothed bodies in a few established positions, like sitting and standing) or do you feel that enough companies already offer these?

I think that should totally be the norm: dolls without faces and bodies unclothed. Not enough companies do and it's important when all the pretty pics that are shown are almost blurry or never from the front and many times, with wigs which cover almost everything.

 

As a new member here and a non-owner as of yet I say all this coming strongly from the stance of someone who until recently had no way to really access box opening/ owner pictures and thus relied on what the companies offered.

It drives me absolutely nucking futs that companies for the most part do not do 'standard nude' pictures for their dolls.
I don't need 20 'artistic' close ups of a dolls wrist in front of (but not covering) her boobs!
I just need one or two pictures showing how she sits, stands, can 'hold' things.

A fine example of what I LIKE is Asleep Eidolon (on Mint on Card)
I was looking at some of their dolls and was curious about their mermaid bodies cause I had yet to really see one. Top of the page the expected artsy shots showing the doll being pretty and 'in water' (which the disclaimer immediately tells you NOT to do).
What delighted me is they go on to show individual shots of all the little things like Ear fin options, hip fins, tail fins, even the types of clam-bras and harps. Now these 'little extras are all painted in different (offered) colors than the standard picture and are OFF the DOLL giving you a good idea of what they really look like without the distraction of the doll's hair or other parts. This I consider an above and beyond display.

What I appreciated even more is that at the bottom they show the body with no paint whatsoever on a plain well lit table (pictures of the head in this manner are offered on the human variation doll). Multiple shots showing the body laid out flat, sitting 'standard', kneeling 'on knees', and even laying back with the tail tucked under so you can truly see the range of motion offered by the tail jointing. The last picture shows the doll once more painted up but in a simple bowl (drying I assume) and shows the forward bending ability of the tail once more without artsy gimmicks.

It was actually these last 'functional' shots NOT the artsy 'enticement' pictures that made me want one of these dolls.

Hands down if I ever need a mermaid I know exactly which company I am going to first because they answered all my questions without a lot of hassle.

And this does carry over to some degree with their human dolls while less through than the mermaid bodies I can easily see how her arm and leg joints bend and function just from a few basic shots (though they provide far more than is necessary). Till these I had no idea what a huge difference a joint in the upper thigh really makes as far as pose-ability.

 

I recently saw a hybrid doll for sale on ebay, a head I really wanted on a body by "Company X" (name changed to protect the other people who may own this sculpt and haven't noticed the problem I'm about to mention!). I assumed that the photograph wasn't very good, taken at an odd angle maybe, because the body looked as though the arms were disproportionately long. I went over to check out the body on Company X's website and guess what, despite featuring 12 shots of this body, not one is a full on body shot where you can see the proportions.

This lead me on a mission, I spent ages trawling DOA and Flickr looking at other owner photos of this body... each time coming to the same conclusion, that the arms of the sculpt are way too long. So, surely not a coincidence that the company photos disguise this interesting feature of their SD body so well?

 

I want to start off by saying I love this topic idea!
I like to see the 'potential' of a doll sculpt through the companies' promo pics, and I expect the company to have some well done photography to get me interested in the doll.

1) Do you feel that some companies mislead, exaggerate, or confuse through their use of photos in advertising their dolls?

YES! So much so that it can turn me off from purchasing from a company.

2) Have you ever received a doll that you felt was not as shown in its photographs (aside from resin color or obvious defects like breakage)? What feature(s) was/ were misrepresented?

I am lucky that I haven't, but I have been very close. I always look at owner picture before I consider a purchase. I was considering buying a doll, but then I found owner pictures that showed some angles that seemed to be purposely avoided in the doll site pics! It seemed deceptive!

4) Do you feel that misleading photographs are a serious problem, or do you feel that companies aren't to be blamed for wanting to make their product look good ? Or, alternatively, do you think that there are plenty of other places to see different photographs of a doll (or even the doll in person at conventions, meetups and so forth) and therefore buyers should simply educate themselves more before they buy? Other thoughts?

It is SOO important to educate yourself and look at other owner pics to get a realistic representation of what you are buying. Of course the site will have the best of the BEST photos to promote their product, but that is NO excuse to, let's say, cover a wonky shaped eye with some bangs or purposely deceive someone by the promo shots. Straight-forward photography is appreciated by me...I don't want a bajillion sparkles super-imposed into the pic to make it look great-- I want a quality doll.

5) Do you think it would help to have a standard format of photos that would be shown by companies in addition to their pretty advertising photos - for example, pictures of unfaceupped heads taken from the front and side; body comparison photos showing unclothed bodies in a few established positions, like sitting and standing) or do you feel that enough companies already offer these?

I really feel that a profile shot and blank head/body shot should be mandatory (they don't HAVE to, but I certainly won't purchase from a company that's afraid to show me what the doll actually looks like!)

 

The unfortunate truth about doll companies is that they are not here for the art - they are here to make money. Consider car photographs in magazines - you really think they look that pristine and perfect? Perhaps clothing - statuesque models are used to make the clothing look better.

Every single company out there strives to show their product in the best light possible - whether that means they don't photograph from a certain angle, or they use photoshop to enhance or downplay certain features, such as face-up colors or how clothing looks. It's true that some companies don't seem to do this (ala Resinsoul/Bobobie), but they are the minority, and I'm pretty sure they edited their pictures so they look their best.

This is an advertising venture, these site pictures, meant to entice you to buy their dolls. Most companies will strive to give you, as close as possible, the exact duplicate of what is shown on the site. However, we cannot expect to have THAT doll, which was made exclusively for the purpose of advertising its line.

We, as consumers, do not expect our cars to look like they do in commercials or magazines, we do not expect the food we eat to look as it does in commercials or on the box, we do not expect our clothes and make-up to make us look like the models wearing them - so why do we expect our dolls to look exactly like they do on the site pictures? That just sounds like an exercise in setting ourselves up for disappointment.

I'm sorry if this comes across as a little harsh, but this is apparently one of my few "buttons" when it comes to the doll hobby. We cannot hold these companies to the standards of artists, no matter how lovely and beautiful the dolls we buy are and how much work goes into making the face-ups, wigs, clothes, etc. They are there to make money from us, and they will use any means necessary to do it. It isn't any more dishonest than what we, as consumers, encounter on a daily basis.

 

I've had this sort of issue with one doll I've bought. There weren't any owner pictures that I could find that would show him in different lights and face-ups so I had to trust that the company pictures were accurate.

This wasn't a face-up issue this was his actual Face. In the pictures he appeared to have a very straight, flat bridge of the nose. The whole reason I bought him was because of this exagerated feature.
Upon receiving him he looked almost completely different! He has a very generic pointy nose with a curved bridge/brow. I was SO disapointed. I still am and have had a lot of trouble bonding to him. No matter what I do he just doesn't look Right.

I went back and looked over the company pictures very carefully but he just doesn't look the same at all. It's the most misleading picture of a doll I have Ever seen. He was doll # 20 and I am very used to buying dolls blank. So it wasn't inexperience either! As is I will likely never buy from that company again and am just thankful he was a cheap doll.

Browsers settings etc can make a face-up and colors just not match reality. Though the only face-ups I have gotten have been LD full-set dolls. So I've never had a face-up show up that didn't look exactly like the photo's. it might be good practice is somebody loves the face-up, to specifically ask for those colors Exactly. So if it shows up with the wrong look, you have something to reference.

 

I've been thinking about this for a bit. It's in the company's best interest to take flattering photos of their products, because it will help them sell. However, when there is no clear photo of the body or face (without being obscured by something) and the doll company refuses to post a blank photo or something, I feel a little iffy.

I don't think the companies specifically want to mislead you or confuse you. Often it's just very artistic photos (Souldoll is a good example of this) that it's hard to see the product clearly.

 

Bewaretheshort1: In the UK (and I'm sure in the States too) there are very strict rules about "distance selling" and misleading potential customers. Car companies have a lot more leeway in their advertising standards because no-one buys a car without going to see it and giving it a test drive. They know exactly what they are buying so it doesn't really matter how glossy and fanciful the adverts are.

Most BJD companies are very well aware that a high proportion of their customer base cannot see the product in the flesh (so to speak) so they have a greater responsibility to represent their product fairly and fully in website photographs. If the BJD companies were based in the EU, that would be a legal requirement.