Doll marketing photography: Do Companies Confuse or Mislead?

Oh yeah I never trust the companies photos.
Steps I do when buying a doll:
1. Find the doll you like
2. Find people pictures of that doll
I have to say for all three of my dolls I wouldn't of bought them If i only looked at the company photo. The clothing, photo quality, eyes, makeup, all make the doll look completely different. But with people photos you can see the potential of a certain mold.

And from what I notice every company photo quality is different. Some are closer to what you see in person others are completely different. With one of my boys his head seems slim in the company photos and with people photos his head looks more plump. In real life I have to say his head is more slimmer than the photos come out to be. I wish there was a way to see all the dolls in person, that would be the best solution >.<

 

I think one of the most misleading set of pictures I have seen are of the new DOT girl body. If you look very, very closely at some pictures, you can see a huge gap when they pose her torso...but it's covered up by her hair in one picture, her arm in another picture, and in all the other pictures the photo was taken from the other side so you can't really see it. It's also hard to tell from the picture whether or not she's double jointed. (she's not) Since it's a new body, there are very few owner pictures out there. It made me angry to see them covering the gap with hair and her arm. Yes, research is necessary. Anyone spending that much money better research the heck out of it. But it was deliberately obscured as much as possible.
Yes, I know that clothing a doll would fix this, because you (probably) wouldn't see the gap (unless they were tight clothes). But anyone posing a doll with a backless dress, or a tight shirt, would also have to obscure the gaps in their photos.
I'm willing to be convinced that since I was able to tell there was a gap in the photos, it's not that misleading, but since they did everything in their power to minimize and obscure it, I think there's justification to the charge that they're misleading any customers.

 

I think if they are going to take so many fancy photographs, they should at least have, at the end, a plain picture of just the blank head so you can see the sculpt.

One thing I noticed is that in company photos they make dolls look so much less like dolls. In the dream of doll photos, for instance, the dolls look so alive!! They look like little mini people with joints.

Even dollstown, who's photos aren't as fancy, give my seola a feel as if she's going to jump right out of the screen and hug me. My seola does look like the photos, but much more "dollish" in real life.

 

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

Hmmm, I'd say yes and no... Every company wants to sell their doll, so photographing the doll in the best way possible is pretty much expected, however, I'd say there are probably a few companies who know exactly what they are doing when they take photos at certain angles and in certain poses that hide defects in the sculpt. Heck even taking very few photos is worrisome, and I always wonder if there is something to hide...

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'm not sure if my experience counts, but I'd bought a second generation doll from one company, right as they were rolling over the sculpts from an older body to a newer one. They didn't have many good pictures of the new body but had promised only the new body was being released. If someone hadn't put up an in depth review of the new body on the forum when they recieved it, I never would have realized that what I'd recieved was not only not the new body, but a clever fake-out (90% the old body with a few "newer" parts changed in).

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

Yes and yes. I contacted them immediately with detailed photos pointing out the differences between the new body and what I recieved, and they chalked it up to an assembly mistake and were already sending me the new body pretty much as soon as I recieved the email from them. I got the new body in less than a week, and while the head didn't fit quite as well, I was more than satisfied with the response. I'm still not sure if it was exellent customer service, or an attempt to hide a chance to get rid of some old bodies though, and I can comfortably say I'll never buy from them again.

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'm of the camp that believes it's up to the consumer to get a real representation of a product on their own, be it through reviews or owner pictures, simply because a company wants to represent their product in the best light, ultimately to sell it. You can't depend on the company to show you different views of the product, if they think that it will make you not buy it... ^_^;

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'd say that this sort of thing is pretty much standard already, and anyone who offers a doll that stands/sits/poses beautifully probably already has the most in depth photos, because they know their doll can back it up and will sell well because of it. Everyone else is trying to fake it as best they can.

 

Honestly, if you're going to plunk down a large amount of money on anything, you need to do research beforehand. That's just common sense.

That being said, I have never encountered a problem with discrepancies between company pictures and the actual doll. Every doll I have bought looked startlingly like the photos. I think a problem many people encounter with the doll versus company photos is in the wig. I think people get very disappointed that their doll doesn't look exactly like the company photo, but most of the time, a bit of wig styling will make the doll look almost exactly like the photo.

I find the most true to life photos are by Iplehouse. Their photos and their dolls are pretty much identical.

 

1) Do you feel that some companies mislead, exaggerate, or confuse through their use of photos in advertising their dolls?
I'd say yes, I've seen tons of dolls that look much nicer in the promos than the owner pics.

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?
Totally! It was her default face up, she looked nothing like the promos there was around 50% less detail in her face, I was bitterly disapointed as that is what drew me to her in the first place.


3) If you answered "yes" to (2), did you tell the doll company and were you satisfied with the response?
Na, it took me 3 months of stress and refunds to get her home in the first place. There was no way I wanted more trouble. Every other doll of that type on this forum with default looks the same as the promos and people have even asked me who did her face up, that's how different she looks.

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?
No I don't think they do it on purpose, I just think they want their doll to look the best it can. I feel like Dream of doll show nicer pictures than dolls but I guess I'd take that into account if I shopped with them.

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?
Na, I can see why some companies even photoshop pictures, like with the months super gems, but they do show pictures without photoshopping too and I never really see the differeance. The dolls are amazing.

 

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

Just a little bit. You can read "doll does not come with any of these accessories, and wig and eyes are random" all you want, but you're making your decision based on the doll depicted. For example, Volks is more wysiwyg with their photos (which they should have more of and better, but another matter), whereas other companies like to make up very elaborate scenes and use outfits and wigs you might not even be able to buy. Is that misleading? A little. I don't mind seeing photos of what you CAN do with the doll, but on the product page I'd rather see THE DOLL rather than an elaborate tableaux.

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 did buy a doll where, when I saw it on the site I was iffy about it, when I saw owner photos (what few there were) I was iffy about it, but when I went and saw it in-person, I had to buy it. Something just wasn't coming through in the photos ...

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 ?

You test-drive a car before you buy it. You walk through a home or apartment before you buy/rent it. When you buy a doll it's often sight unseen. Unless you know someone with that particular doll or that company's dolls, it can be very difficult to see them first hand, feel them, learn about their ability to pose and so on.

When it is impossible to "test-drive" a doll first, you rely heavily on the photos of others. Owner photos are nice, but sometimes there aren't many available or the available ones are kind of bad/blurry/too much flash. You really rely on the company to take good photos that represent their product accurately. There is a difference between making your product look good and sharing all of the features. Some company photos are EXTREMELY elaborate, with intense lighting and colorful backdrops. I would at least appreciate more photos that are "honest," showing the doll as it comes, or with a variety of wigs and eye colors (especially when they state that the wig/eyes are random).

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?

Yeah, pretty much ... plain photos of the head from front and side, with faceup or not (as long as it's default), body photos--those would be nice. Shopping for bodies, I liked how they showed photos of what positions the body can hold. These were not present in the regular doll photos, however. One thing I look for is how well a body can stand, sit, move an arm ... photos showing some poses like that would be nice too.

I mean, I LIKE the pretty photos they use for the dolls ... they're pretty. But when I want to BUY something ... I want to open the box and say, "This is what I ordered," rather than, "WHY DOESN'T IT LOOK LIKE THE PHOTOS??"

 

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

I think they must, but not wholly intentionally. I mean, it is their job to present their dolls in the nicest way they can... but sometimes I find that in real life or in owner photos they do tend to look a little different. Though I suppose - would this really matter to someone who was also a semi professional photographer? Probably not so much. Sometimes I do find it a little unfair that usually you can't buy anything *with* your dollfie apart from the doll and the faceup, but often they'll photograph the doll in different wigs and outfits so you can get a better idea of what the doll can look like. (I know that dollmore does this and I know LUTS has pictures of dolls like this). I think, generally, that should be more than enough.

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. It had been quite a while(and I mean a LONG time) between when I bought my dollfie and when he actually arrived... and during this time, the more I looked at the pictures of him, the more scared I became. I did a lot of research on him, sure but I still couldn't quell my feelings of how impulsive I had been... however, when I received him, I fell totally in love with him. He really didn't look much like the photos at all. I suppose he really *is* the same as what they photographed, nothing about his face or proportions was off but... It must be really hard to *really* photograph some of these dolls because some of them just seem so much nicer in real life.

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 ?

I don't think so. I mean, it's not like they should be forced to photograph their dolls in a way that would make them look bad or unappealing. It is the same for anything. It's not as if a brand like Louis Vuitton would want models wearing their clothes to look any less than perfect so it makes sense doll companies would want to do the same. It's really up to the buyer to research the doll and not be impulsive.

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 companies don't offer enough of these sort of photos... or at least that they don't make them accessible enough. They should at least provide some sort of link to where they sell the body separately so you can see how it poses/looks/functions etc. That would probably be more than enough for me. I suppose it would be better to ask someone who actually had a problem in the past with buying a dollie that looked completely different and ask what they would've wanted.

 

I think it's ok for them to glam up the dolls for the photos. If I really like a doll, then I look at the photos on the company's website and then I search like crazy all over the web for actual pictures from people who have that doll. So i think it's mostly the responsibility of the potential doll owner to do their research as best they can.
I think in very few cases are the companies actually being misleading (i'm not saying it doesnt happen). For the most part though... it's your responsibility to know what you're buying before you buy it!

 

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

I believe that some companies DO mislead , whether it be intentional or not. The use of programs such as Photoshop to enhance their product could easily be misleading to a person who is newly into the doll hobby. I understand that they need their dolls to look good in order to sell them, but there are a few companies that seem to spruce up their pictures to the point of exaggeration.

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. Although I won't name the company, I almost instantly resold the doll because I felt that NOTHING about the doll looked the same as the companies photographs, and I couldn't find many pictures here on DOA of the doll. I also felt as though almost everything about the doll was misrepresented. Although a face up can be changed, the doll was sent with a face up that looked nothing like the picture, the hands and wrists of the doll in the picture were MUCH more pretty and smooth looking than the actual doll, the body wasn't as elegant looking nor as high quality as the picture made it out to be, and the doll's features looked...messy to me, almost like nothing symmetrically matched.

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

After waiting months for the doll to arrive, and having such off and on contact with the company, I didn't feel it to be important enough to attempt to get back in touch with the company to solve the problem when Ebay could quickly do it for 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?

I believe that companies should at LEAST have one picture that represents the actual look of the doll the purchaser would be receiving. I'm not saying that the company should take pictures of every little flaw that the doll has, but to just have one body and head shot that is not altered (or has very little alteration) would be much more helpful to the buyer. A place like DOA is a great place to see the owner's pictures of a doll, but what happens when that doll wasn't a popular sculpt, or was LE?

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'm not totally sure on this. There are a few companies that really are good at showing all sorts of pictures of their dolls, and then there are some that need more pictures. In the end, it's all up to the company, although I believe that many owners and buyers of dolls would agree that comparison photos would be beneficial to their choice of buying that doll or not.

 

It's kind of disappointing when it's wearing an outfit not even sold on the site.

When I first saw DOC Twing-key, I LOVED the outfit, as well as the DOT Shall's, but it said to the effect of "the designer has the copyright to it, therefore we can't sell it"

wtf man

 

tl;dr >.>

I am in the process of purchasing a doll that I love from a friend. I recently thought I'd go take a peek at the official picutres. I'm SO GLAD I saw her irl first, or I probably wouldn't have considered her. The website pictures are hideous and really wouldn't have attracted me at all.

So I think it goes both ways. Some companies I've looked at their dolls on the site and really liked them, but seen one in person and not liked them, and similarly the opposite is true. I think no matter what happens there will always be an element of difference (not just in resin tone etc) but it does annoy me when some companies heavily photoshop their site pictures (even the basic ones) until you can't really see what's real and what's not. Take Punk Andrea and Cinderella by Angell-Studio. Tan dolls, but don't look it in the promo pictures because they're just too photoshopped. But fortunately, they do have properly lit, unedited pics at the bottom of the page so you can see their features properly.

If all sites did this, I think there'd be a lot fewer dolls changing hands afterwards (so perhaps for some people it's not such a good thing? ) but really it doesn't bother me all that much, because I try and find ownerpics of any doll I want to buy from a website before I commit to buy, since my first doll didn't really look the way I expected him to

 

I think DOD is the worst culprit for non-representative photos - overly photoshopped. It doesn't matter so much now because there are so many owner photos you can get a more realistic feel for the doll. DZ was also guilty of the same, but they seem to have got a lot better.

I always look at owner photos, though really mostly because I like to see how versatile a sculpt is. It would be super helpful of companies to produce blank-with-wig photos because it's useful if you want to use the magical photoshop to mock up a faceup, but really that's more for buyer's convenience than for seller's honesty.

I did receive a doll that was not like the photos (it was not dod or dz). I was very disappointed as soon as I received him and I didn't tell the seller because I was new to the hobby. There were no owner photos but I really liked the pictures. Looking back on them I could see they were only taken from one angle - the one flattering one. His face looked underdeveloped and the resin was kind of lumpy (like the original sculpt hadn't been properly sanded). One eye was higher than the other, one eyelid was thicker than the other - eye placement was a nightmare. I'm not usually bothered by slightly off symmetry, but the thicker eyelid just compounded the problem. This was a long time ago. I persevered for some time, but just could not work with the mold.

I also find the Volks standard pictures (and some limiteds) to be non-representative in that their pictures are kind of wan and do not show the sculpts off well. In this instance it works out well because there are plenty of owner photos about and the pictures are neutral enough to leave space for your own image of the doll. On the downside, it was a long time before I realised what beautiful dolls Kun and Syo are!

 

I think skin tone and face ups are the real problem. I have realized that dolls shot against black backgrounds will not look the same when you get them. My Jace looked great in the company photos, but in real life his skin is pale and although I do feel the face up is the same, it looks washed out.
That being said, I think if you can't order the doll with body blushing then it shouldn't be shown with it. Same for wigs, Jace had a great wig in the photos, but came with a cheap faux fur wig. I have never located the same wigs they used, nor do they sell them.
His face is very uneven, one ear sticks out more than the other, this happens in real life, faces aren't symetrical but I felt they knew how odd he looked and coverd up his ears in all the promo photos. Yes I did see the unpainted head, but it didn't look bad then. Maybe because it wasn't on the skinny neck. His head looks small for his body.
Iple house does a great job with the promo photos, but again I bought two girl dolls from them and a boy. The girl doll faces are much bigger than the boy, and there is a huge difference between the girls. So much so I never keep them together in the same picture.

 

It's funny at the doll meet I was at on Sunday we were talking how much better the Soom monthlies look in person than their pictures even with the fancy photoshopping. We had Euclase there and he was incredible. I was surprised how the Soom pictures weren't able to show how fabulous his outfit was or his wig for that matter. The same was true about the Topaz that was there. I didn't care that much for her face until I saw owner pictures of her and she is even more beautiful in person.

 

I think every company in some way make the item seem a little different than the actual product being sol, wether your buying the most expensive doll ever or a burger at burger king. I always try to reasearch the sculpt rather than the faceup and if I see potential within a blank sculpt than it will be purchased, if i don't like what i see ie the eye sockets are way to big or the lips are just a little off it won't be purchased.

Like most everyone else said it's the buyer to research beforehand. I made the mistake before where I didn't research and I almost bought a doll that I know I wouldn't have been happy with. I'm very thankful for doa

 

1) Do you feel that some companies mislead, exaggerate, or confuse through their use of photos in advertising their dolls?
I don't think they mislead or confuse, but of course they try and exaggerate their dolls good points. They're in the buusiness of selling.

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?
When i received my puki, she looked SO different from the company photo's. Her face up was very different than the "default". I loved the one I had, but I still felt gipped on it.

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

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 it's a doll photographers business to make the company photo's look amazing. If you're worried so much about how different your doll is going to look without this amazing photographer, look around. There are plenty of owner pictures of any 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 feel most companies offer enough of these types of photo's in their specifics (like, where they list specific measurements and what not). Allso, you can see what a head mold looks like without face up by going and looking at the individual head for sale.

Really, the companies are businesses. They are marketing their dolls, by putting on the best fitting clothes, taking the perfect face up, the best wig/eyes combo and a talented photographer with the right props and taking pictures. There's more than enough chance for any potential owner to go and look up owner photos first before committing to buy. So, no, I don't think the doll companies are being "misleading"

 

I think, when well done, Doll companies can either show the full potential of their dolls, or they don't and loose customers. It can confuse and mislead you if you don't see full potential of the dolls. That's why owner pictures are so nice. You can get a general idea of what the doll looks like most of the time and what the mold is capable of.

 

There's been a number of people mentioning that the promo pics look better/different than the owner pics. However, I will say that I've seen many owner pics that are nicer or show the doll in a more appealing way than a lot of the promo pics that are out there. Also, promo pics and owner pics will always look different because of the very nature of the dolls--many owners do not do up their dolls to look anything like the actual company pics and photography skills and equipment will always vary.

 

I wouldn't call it misleading because at the end of the day the companies have to promote their products somehow. They highlight all the best features and concentrate of using them to draw in the customers, which obviously works due to the fact that these dolls sell. Of course they are going to dress it up and pose it in the most flattering positions that bring out the potential of the body - it sells. How many people have been drawn in by the pretty pictures and find themselves clicking on the buy button? If it's a limited mould then you never know if hesitating is going to cost you your doll, do you?

Think about it being similar to having your photograph taken. We aim to look our best and the photographer does everything within their power to make this the finest photo ever taken, using background, lighting etc, to bring out the best. Then FLASH - photo done and can be sent to grandparents who complain that they never have any nice photos (forgetting all the photos that cover the walls!).

The brilliant thing is that if we are worried about the appearance of a doll, we can always search for owner pics and do a bit of research beforehand. However, sometimes we only have the company pictures to work with and just have to put enough trust in the company itself. It's a marketing scheme that the companies have learnt to master - well, might I add. Besides, if the company can makes these dolls look fabulous then why can't we?



(Now going slight off topic, after reading a few horror stories I do believe that if a company does mess up with a doll, for example the face-up not looking like the default (whether that is the same as the pic or not) or the correct colours not being used, then they should right their wrong. What was that golden saying that companies need to adhere to? I do believe it is the customer is always right...)

Anywho, my couple of pennies thrown in there