Doll marketing photography: Do Companies Confuse or Mislead?

This is really interesting to hear. My main comment was going to be that the Soom Monthly dolls were - detrimentally - overly photoshopped. Especially in the case of Helios and Amber. On one hand, I can see that Soom was going for a certain effect, but the massive amounts of bloom just washed out all the details. The owner photos I've seen are much more flattering, largely because you can actually see the sculpts, which are amazing.

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

Some companies definitely do - everything from excessive lighting (as mentioned above, but often used to obscure lack of detail, rather than Soom's odd choice of actually obscuring details) to altering colour balances to make body blushing or faceups have more or less contrast.

I also - as a bit of a BJD newbie - think that many companies don't do enough to convey the scale of their dolls - often they are posed against plain backgrounds, or backgrounds which make them appear to be human-sized, and all their props tend to reinforce this. For someone who already has a few dolls, and so has a good grasp of scale, this doesn't mean much, but I'm sure that, say, Soom's Helios would be much larger than I'm imagining. It's not a technique I think companies are using to encourage buyers, but I do think it's rather negligent on their part.

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?

My experience with dolls is a bit limited, but I've been fairly happy with everything I've recieved so far. There are a couple of cases of heads not quite matching bodies in colour, but nothing that bothers me.

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

Although I answered no, I do know that other people have had problems with that particular company (with weak wrist joints that snapped under minor wear), and they did complain as a group, and the company responded by sending out replacement limbs and (as far as can be seen) have adjusted manifacturing to prevent the problem occuring in newer dolls. So, though I haven't had problems directly, I do think that I'd trust the company to right any wrongs I may have in future.

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 companies should have both edited photos to make their dolls look as glamorous as they can be, with fancy costumes and full make-up and body blushing as well as 'basic' photos. I think, at minimum, they should include photos of the doll without photoshopping 'effects', with an intent to show the doll as 'true to life' as possible (regarding colour-balance and detail).

I also think it would be a positive thing if they included nude shots, shots of dolls with no paint jobs at all, and perhaps even shots of the parts unassembled (this would have been exceptionally useful with the Soom monthlies... I'm still trying to work out exactly how many pieces Beryl's hooves are and how they fit together...). And, as I mentioned earlier, I would personally like it if scales were included. Just a ruler in one of the basic pictures would be fine.

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 should have read this question before answering 4). I'll just note that I haven't seen any companies that include enough 'basic' photos for my liking. There's definitely a strong trend towards the 'pretty' photos. To explicitly answer 5), yes, I do think this would help. Buying something so expensive online can be a very daunting thing (at least at first, before you have one doll to compare to), so there really should be as much information out there as is possible.

 

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

Of course. That's usually how people market. They want to make you think their product is absolutely glamorous. Most of the time, they're correct, the dolls are beautiful and wonderful and I've even seen a few companies that really don't do their dolls justice, photo-wise. But there are companies that mislead, on purpose or not, we could never really tell...
It's really about the preference of the owner though, to each his own through his own eyes.

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?

Every doll is different. Some may have faults others don't.
Personally, I haven't received a doll that was misleading, in fact, the photos were nothing compared to Soom or Iplehouse, etc. But that let the raw beauty of the doll show.

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 believe that even if the company has good photos, a person serious about getting a doll should look up other photos and information about that doll. Companies mislead, so people should be aware and prepared to look elsewhere for information.

A company should have their products look good, but they should also have pictures of the body and face with no face-up, blush or anything else so they can let their buyer know what they're really getting.

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 absolutely think so, for new buyers and people who feel like they've searched for enough pictures. More variety could attract more customers. But I suppose it could also cause people to think of the dolls differently than without their make-up...

 

I've gotten some really horrible wigs from DZ. I've bought 3 full sets and everything was great except the wigs. Hid's wig was just a plain old red fur wig, not at all styled or cut like the one in the pic. Celine's wig was just horrible! It was like someone cut the toe off a furry moccasin. It made her look like a conehead and the fur on it was patchy. Totally unusuable. And Hong's wig was ok, but much thinner than expected. You can see the wig cap right through it. I really thought that the pics were misleading about what you get. I didn't complain cause I got them through DDE and I didn't want to hassle them. Wigs are sort of an easy fix anyway, but I still would have liked to have had the option to use the wigs they came with.

 

1) I think advertising for dolls is like advertising for most things in the commercial market. Sometimes the ads don't really show you the reality, but it is a marketing strategy to show the buyer something beautiful to pull you in nonetheless. I don't necessarily think it's misleading because in a general way: I put as much research into other commercial items as I do into my dolls. I want to see non-commercial photos and what people liked and didn't like about each doll I'm interested in.

2) I've never received a doll that wasn't true to my expectations. The ones I have actually exceeded my expectations! Hopefully, this trend will continue.

3) N/A

4) As I mentioned prior, commercial marketing is the way it is for a reason. It's not necessarily about sales all the time, but rather about presenting things in an appealing manner. Most places do like satisfaction from customers as well because it encourages a sense of loyalty. Personally, if I like something, then I'll be a return customer. I definitely believe in researching before you buy especially when it comes to BJDs.

5) I think that unfaceupped heads would be neat to see more often on company websites. Until then, cataloguing done by owners will have to continue being done.

 

When considering a new doll, I never go off of the company photos alone before buying;
I make it a habit to look up as many owner shots as I can to get a better feel for the doll’s features
from several different angles/POVs. It also really helps when envisioning
the doll’s physical potential, as it were. :*D​

 

I'm all for a set of standard, basic photos without face-up or body blushing, and that should include a profile! I know that angle is a bad angle for a lot of dolls, but I really want to know what that nose looks like! I see a lot of dolls on websites in those three-quarter or full-face shots who look moderate in that department, and then you see owner profile pics and think "Whoa! What a honker!"

 

I find this so strange. It seems many companies know very well what "flaws" their dolls have, and what isn't desirable. Thus they pose their dolls so that these "flaws" won't show in the pics. Why not redo/change the actual doll instead? Why sell a product that you don't think is perfect?

I don't think all companies do this but it's an interesting topic. I don't mind glamour shots but I guess that's because I know that they can be decieving. I always do as much research as possible and look at tons of owner pics before deciding to get a doll... but after all I do that with everything pricey I buy, may it be an espresso machine, a doll or a laptop. I think that the research itself is part of the fun.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. Most company shots don't offer profile views at all
[a few LUTS dolls come to mind] which is one of the major selling points for some owners. @A@;​

 

MoonChild: I thought I was the only one who thought that about the DOT girl body. :O I actually think the old body is better looking, despite all their attempts to hide the flaws in the new one XP

There are instances where I think it's purposely hiding flaws in their molds, and then there are cases where I think it's just horrible photography direction on their part. They have all these glamor shots but they don't know the basics of glamor portfolios: Front, Three-quarter, PROFILLLLLE. NNNNNNNNNGGGGGG this makes me want to grab them and shake them but it's difficult living on the other side of the world from them.

 

1) Do you feel that some companies mislead, exaggerate, or confuse through their use of photos in advertising their dolls?
I don't believe that any company blatantly misleads through their photos. However I do feel that a doll can look completely and totally different if dressed, customized, painted and even photographed differently than in the stock 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?
I was never dissatisfied. I have been a little surprised seeing my dolls come home without a face-up and really seeing the head mold and body up close. I did notice that my Souldoll Paris doesn't like to sit up on his own and that in the stock photos he was always standing. Was it misleading? I don't know. It's not the end of the world though, so I don't really care.

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

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 always try and see as many owner photos of a doll as I can before buying. As I said before, I feel that dolls can look completely and totally different once their owner customizes them. It's a good idea to look at other people's dolls to see if the doll will work with what you have planned and to avoid dissatisfaction. Dolls are expensive and should should be able to see exactly what you are paying for.

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?
Heads without faceups, standing and sitting should be standard photos for every doll IMO. Very few companies have these or they are not linked properly from a doll's page and readily available.


That's my two cents.

 

I don't have too much experience but so far I have been pretty lucky. Shu Shu looks better than her photo. She is sitting with me now and all I can say is WOW. I love her and Luts took very simple and accurate photos of her.

My Glorydoll Lucy also looked like her photo but she had other problems that could not be captured in a photo.

I did as much research as I could and I did not buy until I saw many owner photos. I keep a folder with all the photos I can find and I look through the images often before I buy. I find that the more I go back and look the easier it is for me to see the little fine details in each sculp. I prefer raw untouched photos or the ones that use strange even unflattering angles. This helps me really see the shape of the sculp and imagine the good and bad.

Lastly, I am considering a Dollstown Estella and I really like the photos they take on their site. The lighting does a good job of showing off all the details in the sculp and the site always includes unpainted faces in different positions. Can anyone tell me if they found DT accurate?

I feel it is my responsibility to do the research off of the official site. However, I do sympathize with anyone who feels a bit cheated by lighting and Photoshop touch ups! Photography can work black magic sometimes but Photoshop is where people are truly mislead.

 

Well, I certainly don't blame the companies for advertising with fancy, pretty shots. They're trying to get 500$+ out of us for a doll -- you'd have to be very convincing to get most people to do that. Even the food industry tempts people into buying their products -- I recall seeing this segment on Discovery Kids when I was little, showing how McD's prepared the "pretty" (uncooked, actually!) hamburgers that are used in their ads.

With that said, part of this "convincing" process should include ALL aspects of the doll. I think it would be a great idea if there were some sort of "doll photo studio" where "basic" pictures of the dolls sans face up are taken -- so ALL dolls are photographed in the exact same place, with the exact same lighting. It'd be easier to compare them, if they were all held to a standard like that. These shots would help the people who like doing their own face ups; while the pretty shots would "tempt" those of us who don't dare and would rather have them come with one from the company.

... and I'm glad to hear so many people think Soom takes "unflattering" pics. If the MA guys are any more handsome IRL than on their promo pics, then they'll be very worth my going poor for them.

 

The one that comes to mind is Bobobie's Mei. I'm new to bjd collecting and saw Mei I think through another site. It turned out that she has pointy elf ears. I have nothing against pointy elf ears, but they are cleverly covered by her wig on the Bobobie site. I was so surprised. They (Bobobie) have a doll referred to as an elf (Sprite), but Mei is referred to as a girl. No clear photo anywhere on their site with the ears "exposed". I think I was looking at a gallery, when I saw her magical ears. I thought they had been modded. Now that I've found DOA, I don't think I would buy any doll before seeing photos and reading what people say.

 

Well, we can't really blame a company for wanting to flatter their product. If they said "The chin is assymetrical and the toes are too small!" then people would be less confident in buying from them. Also, who wants to buy from a company who doesn't have confidence in their work? I know I wouldn't want to order something if the company said "Well, it's certainly not the best out there. But it'll do!"

I do think it's helpful when companies post many shots of the dolls, especially without face-ups or clothes. It's always nice to get a more comprehensive idea of what you're buying. But nothing beats a little research on the part of the buyer.

 

1) Do you feel that some companies mislead, exaggerate, or confuse through their use of photos in advertising their dolls?
I think part of being a BJD collector and buying BJDs is the ability to look through the wonderful wig, beautiful face-up, and the stunning outfits. Of course the dolls are going to look amazing, they are trying to sell a product. I don't think they are trying to trick you into a purchase, they know that we know how to complain!

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 a male body on my doll instead of the female I purchased, but that doesn't really count. After some arguing I got what I had paid for.

3) If you answered "yes" to (2), did you tell the doll company and were you satisfied with the response?
Well it's a good thing I save the receipt email. It took a lot of arguing, but in the end it all turned out ok. I love my Miyuki but, I'll never buy another B&G.

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 they should at least put a picture of the head before face-up. Plenty of complanies do it, but not all.

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?
Well I pretty much ansered this already with the last question.

 

I can't tell you the number of times I've looked at a doll on a company's website and thought they were...well, ugly, or at least very 'meh'. And then I decide not to judge at first glance, and check out the database here on DoA. And when I see these photos of the doll, I think they're GORGEOUS. I don't know if it's the face-ups the companies give, the way the photos were taken, or the editing they went through, but I think many companies make their dolls uglier instead of prettier in their photos.

Oh, well, I guess I should answer the questions.

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

I think they try, but often end up just making the doll look bad. They are obviously trying to sell a product, so they probably do play around extensively with the pictures and the editing. That's what I expect from a company, though.

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.

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 it's the buyers job to look up other photos and make sure that they like the doll even with a variety of different face-ups, lighting, etc. This can be difficult with rare sculpts, though >_< But I don't think the companies should be blamed for trying to sell something.

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 would like companies to post blank heads without eyes (eyes really influence my ability to unbiasedly judge a head, I've noticed. Even if a head is blank, I won't be able to focus on the sculpt if it has eyes) from both from and side. But I don't fault them for not doing so, it's just something I think would be nice.

 

I've never not been satisfied with a doll I've received, but I've also been sure to find photos of someone ELSE owning the doll before I've ordered it. Dolls can look a lot different "in person" than they can on the site, and I think most people do know that.

I know that this can especially be a problem when it comes to new dolls (or limited release), but I don't think I'd ever send off hundreds of dollars for a doll I hadn't "seen" (in another home-taken photo) unless I had prior experience with the company.

 

Honestly if I did nothing but look at company shots to purchase a doll, I wouldn't be a very smart shopper. It is tough though because you rarely get other shots of a new/limited/special doll unless someone shoots a picture of then in person at an event or something... but often someone's got pictures somewhere if you do a bit of snooping! I would need to read up on the company that I'd be purchasing the doll from first before doing anything else... you don't drop loads of money on something without doing some research first!

 

Well, the selling point for me on Soom's Hati doll was seeing the non-photoshopped images of her in the Soom store in Japan. When I saw she looked even better in those photos than the promotional ones, I was determined to get her.

If the companies would do this themselves, I think they'd get a lot more initial sales. (Also thinking of Dream of Doll's new DoCs)

 

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

no, to me, it is just normal advertising. sometimes, the dolls even look worse in the company pictures.

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?

kind of. with my second and, so far, last doll, a bluefairy olive, the company completly mislead me by making her look innocent, with a picture taken from below, while they didn't show her way more aggressive expression from above. a complete character change.

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

no reason of doing this. it would have been oretty stupid and childish of 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?

no problem really. plus, if you don't like a doll, you can sell it. not like they become soulbound in the moment you open the package

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?

yup! it would be so useful for the buyer!
i've never seen anything like this actually, from the companies. just from users.
but at the same time, already enstabilished photos would lack the "hooking" part, wich makes you get interested in the doll... so far, i'm fine with normal company photos.