Doll marketing photography: Do Companies Confuse or Mislead?

Actually I can't find this wholey true. Majority of people do buy things based on the idea they can be 'that cool' or 'that pretty' if they do. And it's not like we don't hold others to the same 'insane' standards

I myself recently bought an action figure from my favorite movie.
The creator of both was Disney which set them at both a high and low standard in that I expected a good toy if not a wholly accurate one. I expected it was intended to be played with and that it might not be able to stand on it's own and thus sticky tape might be needed for some poses should I want pictures.

It was a child's toy, it come with weapons and lit up when you pushed a button. There were promises of 'full articulation', and pictures of the figurine holding the provided accessories even standing in a battle stance and was all shiney and pretty and promising...

$20 later I found out what I really had was a glorified plastic stick.
The 'action figure' can not sit, crouch, bend his knees, turn his head, or hold any of his weapons despite having joints in the expected places.

My two pose choices are hands on the hips standing (packaging/blisterpack pose) or 'crucified' where his arms are stuck straight out, no other movement is achievable.

One (only) thing that WAS true is he lights up when you push a button.

I was PISSED, hurt, very betrayed.
Even more so when i realized 'I'm 23 I can't imagine how hurt a KID would be by their toy being this crappy.'

I did not return my stick since I would hardly expect the great and powerful Disney to give a shit but what I DID do was make sure on every site (like Amazon) that had this doll that there were reviews that warned others about these huge flaws in in the 'toy' so that no one else would be blinded by the promises on the box.

Fact is there is a huge difference between 'reasonable diffrences' (Maybe the blue dress made her skin look darker) and outright bullshit ( Camera angle hiding a gaping seam between two parts.

 

1) Do you feel that some companies mislead, exaggerate, or confuse through their use of photos in advertising their dolls?
I think the vast majority of companies represent their dolls very fairly and accurately. Even Soom, with their more glamorous and Photoshopped pictures, does a good job at showing me what I will see once I open the box. Of course, there are exceptions to this, which I'll elaborate on below.

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 feel that Dream of Doll is the company that consistently puts out images that do not represent the dolls accurately (this is not to say that their dolls are not beautiful - they are). I bought 4 DoD dolls in 2004, when the company began reaching out to the US market. Unfortunately, there were no owner photos, as the sculpts that I bought were just released, so researching was not an option. When the first 2 dolls arrived, I was immediately very disappointed. To me, they looked very different from the company pictures. Beautiful, but different, and, as a result, not for me. Because I loved Dream of Doll sculpts so much from their company pictures, I figured that it must have been just those two dolls that didn't quite match up, so I bought 2 more to try out (yes, looking back, it was a bad idea, but live and learn), and, of course, I was disappointed once again - they looked nothing like the promo pictures. I ended up selling these 4 dolls and have not bought from the company since. I desperately want to like one of their dolls, because the resin is beautiful and it ages wonderfully, but every time I look at owner pictures of sculpts that catch my eye, I see again and again how very different they are from company shots. I doubt that I will ever own a Dream of Doll BJD again.


3) If you answered "yes" to (2), did you tell the doll company and were you satisfied with the response?
I did not tell the company for various reasons. BJDs were not as easy to come by when I started out in the hobby, and I felt thankful for those companies who sold internationally, which made me very reluctant to complain. Also, it would have been difficult for me to verbalize exactly what the problem was, aside from saying "the dolls look different from promotional shots" - that's not very helpful. I still don't quite understand what it is about DoD's photography that makes their dolls look so incongruous with owner pictures. Finally, I felt that as an early adopter of the new company and sculpts, not liking the dolls in person was one of the risks I took. After all, DoD sent me beautifully made dolls, without any defects or imperfections. The fact that I didn't like them in person was unfortunate, but not the company's problem.

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?
Of course, the companies want to make their product look good, just like any other business. Glamour shots, Photoshopped pictures, mood lighting, etc. are all to be expected, especially in this hobby, where many view BJDs as art, rather than just toys. Most companies are doing just fine presenting their dolls in a fair way.

Also, as been already pointed out many times, these days there are so many resources available to hobbyists who are in the market to buy a doll - DoA's galleries, Flickr groups, doll blogs, the list goes on. There are plenty of ways for the buyer to educate herself before buying a doll. For limited dolls, of course, the research process is a bit trickier. But, one can look at the company's past releases and compare them to owner pictures to get a feel for what the said company's dolls look like once they are home. By doing this, you get a feel for the company's aesthetic and are able to make better decisions on any new limiteds. The only case when it becomes difficult is when the company is brand new and no one has seen any of the dolls in person - then, it's just a gamble you take as an early adopter.

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 feel certain standard photos would be very helpful, but, ultimately, not very necessary. I've been able to request extra pictures (blank head, etc.) whenever I feel like I need more information, and so far, the companies have been very accommodating. Once, I even requested a pictures of Soom's previous LE and the current LE side-by-side (I was unsure if they were different enough), and was provided with such pictures in a matter of days. As far as instituting some sort of global standard, I don't think that's very realistic. I am sure that when companies post photos, they take into account what their customer base is looking for. And, they are also ready to send any extra pictures to those few who want to see more than what was shown. Sounds fair to me!

 

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

Yes I do. I've only ever owned and seen two dolls IRL though, but judging by those I can already say yes.

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?
To my big disappointment I had found the "perfect" doll. When I got it I was really busy with IRL so I didn't have the time to do anything with the doll I basically just picked it up an checked if it had broken anywhere or had any stains, when it didn't I put it back into the box and put it away for a good while.
Later on when I finally had the time to have the doll out in the open I noticed that, in fact, the face didn't look at all like in the pictures. The head was gigantic and the shape of the face was completely different.
This includes the huge nose which didn't seem so big in any of the photos.

3) If you answered "yes" to (2), did you tell the doll company and were you satisfied with the response?
Sadly no. Even though it wasn't too long ago, I figured I was the one to blame as I didn't check the face immediately. Had I done that, maybe I would've been able to return it.

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 that the companies should be legally bound to provide as realistic photos as possible. I know that they are trying to sell a doll but they should have pictures of " this is how the doll will look most of the time" and "this is what you can do if you are a very skilled artist" or "this is what the doll could look like with this exact outfit".
Self education or not, when I see a picture taken by the company and then compare it to someone who's bought the fullset of the doll and don't see a great difference.. well then it's difficult to figure out whether or not those important features will be different irl or not .

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?
Definetly. As I mentioned before, even heads with makeup (the ones you could choose from the company of course) but not in those very beautiful pictures you see in the promo pics.






I still wonder whether or not to talk to the company about this. I feel a bit ashamed that I didn't check things out earlier and yet I find myself with a doll I can't really bond with due to great disappointment. I even tried changing the faceup to make it more.."mine" .. but that didn't help either
What would you do?

 

Also I'm not buying a car because it has a certain grill type or color, or a burger because the bun as X amount of sesame seeds on top and the cheese has melted a certain way. I'm buying a car for functionality and I expect the damn thing to run like it's promised. I'm buying the burger because I'm hungry and I have a reasonable expectation for it to taste a certain way. (people with car collecting hobbies and fine dining preferences not withstanding, but they'd feel the same way about their cars and food as we do about our dolls.)
When I buy a doll, I want the sculpture, and it had damn well better look like it does on the website because I am buying something for my Visual use, not for taste or for transportation or because the artist is a nice guy and deserves my hard earned money just on principle. For the kind of hobby that this is and the amount of money it costs us, yes, I expect the product to look as well as it's presented.

 

1) Do you feel that some companies mislead, exaggerate, or confuse through their use of photos in advertising their dolls?
I think their advertisements are no more misleading than any advertisements. There are professional photographers whose job it is to make something look good in a product advertisement. Obviously no company is going to show crappy pictures of their dolls. As a consumer, one should be aware that the company is obviously going to do the best they can to sell their doll.
Things like head size to body size can be disguised by angle, but if you know what you're looking for then it shouldn't fool you. Now if they actually went in and shopped the head smaller, that would be a different story. I haven't seen any companies do this yet >.>
Also judging by 'amateur' owner pics is a no-no for me personally. I've seen two people take pictures of the exact same doll, and the difference in how they look is amazing just because of photography skills. It's not something I ignore in a case like this >.> I would only judge it as a misrepresentation if the actual product differed, or something like resin quality which can't be seen in a photo anyway :T

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?
No. well...one company forgot the eyelashes... but I think that was just pure mistake XD

3) If you answered "yes" to (2), did you tell the doll company and were you satisfied with the response?
I didn't tell them about the eyelashes :T That seems redundant to me...

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?
Honestly? I think McDonald's advertisements are more misleading than most BJD companies :T It's not a big problem for me and I think if people do their homework, it shouldn't really be a big problem for them. Why wouldn't somebody educate themselves before buying something worth upwards of 300$?

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?
Unfaceupped heads would be great. A lot of companies do that already, but not enough Maybe there should be a forum in the picture threads for it (or is there? idk)

 

I don't know if I posted here (I don't think so), but...

1) Do you feel that some companies mislead, exaggerate, or confuse through their use of photos in advertising their dolls?
I only know of a limited number of companies, but to some extent, I think there is some misleading going on. It's not promising one thing, and delivering something entirely different - like saying a dress comes in green, but they give out a blue dress not even advertised - but the camera angles cause some worry.

How many times have we seen dolls with their faces angled slightly to the left or right? It's sort of difficult to find a doll picture with a perfectly straight-on head shot; even those that are more straight-on are slightly tilted. It might make the doll look glamorous, but do I really need four pictures of the doll - dressed in the same wigs, eyes, and clothes - looking to the left? Sure, the distances from the camera vary, but how does that help me? In this case, I don't think it's misleading on purpose, but it is silly.

I had really wanted a head from SoulDoll, because the eyes were big, round and 'happy-looking', but upon seeing user pictures - who don't have to worry about glamor shots - the eyes looked smaller, further apart, and generally 'squinty'. With some help on DoA, someone showed me the AS Kana and I'm hooked. That sculpt has eyes that are big, round and 'happy-looking' even with user photos.

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?
No, but I dislike how some companies load the doll up with clothes/accessories. It was kind of hard for me to evaluate the BBB Apollo because it was hard to generally see his face, and they only had one photo. I did buy him, and I'm happy with him - and his face.

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?

Usually, if you're not happy with what the company gives you in terms of photos, owner photos will save you. That's part of why I bought my Apollo; the owner pics looked good. That's why I was turned off from the SoulDoll sculpt I originally wanted. Like I said, owners aren't obliged to sell their dolls, so you get the non-glamorous, regular-Joe photos that can possibly make-or-break a sale.

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've seen this most of the time. The only thing I find odd is the poses the dolls are sometimes put in. Dollmore comes to mind, because I thought the leg-holding pose was odd; I didn't know why someone would ever put the doll in that pose in the first place - but I know why they did it. They did it as a way to show that the doll has good posabilitiy.

What I, personally, would like to see are poses showing how far the legs and arms can bend, without help; how far the knees will bend, and even how the inside of the head generally looks. I'd also like blank heads to have face ups in one or two photos; it's hard for some of us to get a mental picture of how an only-blank head will look with a face up.

 

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

I think photos on the internet can be misleading, but for the most part I don't believe it is on purpose.

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?

Not really, but I recieved a Soom Obsidius human head in a split that wasn't quite like I expected. He was gorgeous, but Soom only posted two pictures of his human head on his page, so that's all I had to go on. The personality of the "romantic" human head didn't match the personality I percieved from his stock photos. I think Soom could have taken more photos, but I wouldn't say that he was misrepresented.

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?

Owner photos are key, imo. I always search for them on DoA and dA. That help me make my final decision. I think there are just as many examples of companies that don't show a doll's full potential. Dollshe's face-ups, for example, look much better in owner photos than on their website.


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 care more about the aesthetic of the face and body than the way it poses, so I like to see the sculptural details of the head and body. If a company has two bodies or heads to choose from, they should show them side by side. Otherwise a scrolling frenzy ensues on my computer, where I'm trying to spot the differences and figuring out which pictures use what parts

 

I've never felt mislead, but confused. I understand they want to take the most spectacular shots to sell their product, but mostly what I want is a blank sculpt photo included. So many times I see a doll and can't figure out if I like the sculpt or the face-up. When I got Fionan I was shocked by how long his ears were because I'd only seen images where he was wearing a wig. Cailean's hip joints were nothing like what I expected. None of these were bad things, but some blank sculpt images would have been nice. Ears always get me, though, they're my pet peeve.

 

I don't have this so much with dolls as I do with wigs. Often the pictures are cut at the top of the doll's head to get a close-up on their face, so you can't see the top of the wig. I had this three times already where I was quite dissapointed of the wig.

 

This problem is not at all isolated to dolls. I am photoshop fluent and I can recognize when something is shopped from a mile away, and 90% of products for sale worldwide have photoshopped product photos, and I'm not just talking lighting and effects.

There have been times where I have suspected the faceup of a doll to be touched up in company photos. I can't recall which company, and I wasn't 100% sure either. But I'm sure it happens.

When buying a fullset you don't usually get pictures of the joints because they're covered with clothes. my friend bought a 70cm boy from dollzone and didn't look at the bare body pics and was a little put off by his ridiculous looking joints. It's not like she was misled because the picture ARE available, but they're not on the same page as the doll itself... it was one of her early doll purchases--kind of a first-time goof.

 

That's why I always check different photos from owners before buying a doll.
Sometimes I think a doll doesn't look so pleasing, but owner photos change that.

 

I think the photos that bother me the most are the ones that don't show off the doll's true potential. I LOVE Granado's photos, for example, because they have both the blank head and the doll head with faceup.

I hate Bobobie/Resinsoul's photos. >: ( They don't show off how nice the sculpts could be, as the photography is mediocre at best, and the faceups are usually not that flattering either.

 

I think it is great when companies provide blank/naked photos as this is showing the actual bare product. But I also like their 'glamour shots' that show what is possible to achieve with skill and artistry. Even if they are photoshopped because I shop my photos too, it is an artform in itself. And we all KNOW the company photos are glammed up, even when I bought my first doll from Luts and had never even been on DoA and most owner shots I had seen were on DeviantArt and even nicer than company pics!

I don't really see it as being much different than buying a dress online that is modelled on a size 8 girl when I'm a size 12... it is just using a bit of common sense, isn't it?

 

I do agree with the photos, in general. It's really hard to see most of their faces, because the heads are turned too much, or covered by the wig a little. I hadn't noticed that some of the dolls had elf ears because the wigs covered them.

 

1) Do you feel that some companies mislead, exaggerate, or confuse through their use of photos in advertising their dolls?
Sure. They try to make their product look as good as possible and hide anything that looks not-so-great. Some companies do this more than others... maybe not so intentionally, but it can add up to the same thing.
I think this is a bad thing. People are going to find out about flaws or weird joints that are hidden by wigs or clothes or not showing all the angles. AND we're going post about it. So a company should really think hard about trying to over-photoshop or to hide things--because that will not be a good thing in the long run. They might sell some more dolls than they ordinarily would have--but after that, people would begin to not trust them with a new doll. They might wait and see owner-photos first, in order to decide. And that could hurt sales.
It really doesn't help the company to be deceitful.

My experiences have all been good, however. I buy a number of dolls before there are owner photos (many are limited--so there is no choice in seeing owner photos or reviews). I have usually been VERY satisfied with how the dolls look in-person. Of course, I realize that you can't always go by company photos--but sometimes that is all we have to go on, so the company had best make sure that they don't disappoint anyone!

For the company's own good (and for better sales), I think they need to show naked, unpainted sculpts and joints from back and front and side. --Because they offer blank dolls for sale and that is what people are often buying!!! They SHOULD show what they are selling. And I think it would HELP in sales, since people could trust more in what they are getting. The companies who will post such photos make me trust in them more, anyway.

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?
No. Thankfully! And I have bought a fair amount of dolls over the years. I have been lucky--and the companies I've bought from have usually tried to make a good product and have not tried to 'cheat' in photos.

3) If you answered "yes" to (2), did you tell the doll company and were you satisfied with the response?
N/A for me. But I hope people DO tell companies what they think. Companies need to know what their customers think. If they are a good company they will listen. (they don't have to always change, but they should if there is a big problem and many customers are unhappy)

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 don't think it's a pervasive problem in the bjd world, but I think there are definitely issues that can be improved in this matter. I know that I would be seriously pissed off if I was intentionally misled in a big way. I'm not picky--I understand dolls are hand-made and painted, etc., so there is room for differences. But beyond that, if something like a bad joint was always hidden or not shown, or if a doll arrived looking vastly different from the photos... that's just not right.

I don't think it's right to have to rely on owner-photos, because, as I said, there are a lot of us who are buying limiteds and can't rely on that. If company wishes to sell limiteds like that, they need to be trust-worthy and not try and mislead buyers. So far, I have bought from companies with good records on making a good product that looks close to the photos. That's the type of research I need to do when buying a limited doll where there are no owner-photos to see.

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 would be great. I don't see many companies offering those, but it would be nice. I think that if people keep asking, that would help persuade companies to do this. I don't think it would be rude or bad for customers to ask for those types of photos. I think it would be positive for everyone, the companies and the buyers.

 

I was slightly disappointed that my dolls lips were a pink toned brown instead of pink like in the site photos. I fixed it a bit but that doesn't change the initial disappointment when i pulled off her face wrapping, i love her to pieces now though.
Other than that i was pretty heartbroken that one doll i absolutely LOVED in the site photos was really unimpressive in owner photos, it really showed me that a slight angle can REALLY give a different look.
In the site photos her face was soft and delicate, but in all the owner photos i saw her features were sharper and longer, and didn't come across with the same sweet appearance.

 

Same here with wigs. Also I hate it when some companies use same picture of wig on doll in every size.

Luckily enough I know that every glamour shot of dolls is photoshopped and pretty much nothing is real. Cynical? Maybe, but at least I can't be misleaded.

 

It's mostly the lighting and professional photography for glamour shots.

 

I don't think it's intentionally misleading. I think companies are just trying to show the best their dolls can look, and if you don't have the same skills, that really isn't their fault. However, I do think there should be photos to show the doll blank and naked, from front and side angles.

I have been disappointed in dolls. It's usually due to a flat face and lack of chin. Profile photos really would have helped me decide against buying the doll, but I didn't complain because the doll wasn't flawed, I just didn't like it.