|
I always lean towards real people. I don't really see much downside
If they don't attend something because they don't like one person that's in a picture...that's probably not the only baggage they're carrying and need to deal with. They'd find something else if it was a stock photo.
And that person may be there, picture or not. That's being real and that's why I like real photos. It's time we stop putting a perfect happy smile on everything and say this is a real place with real people with real problems and a real God bigger than it all.
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I understand your concerns as I have lived in a tiny English village where people know everything about each other... but I echo HCCs thoughts on this. Stock photos look like stock photos...and so are not truthful indicators of what visiting your church will be like. There's a truth and transparency to show what church is truly like, 'warts and all'.
I'm sure you know this but ensure that the photos you use are very good quality and that you get everyone's approval for using their image in print.
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I would do real pics, and be very sensitive to who you use. Avoid people who don't play well with others,, and aim for people who you know and trust.
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Although I love the idea of real people, the cringeworthy problem here is that print isn't easily edited. I've had this problem before, using someone who you think is safe and them leave the church because of very wrong decisions, and having no budget to re-print the piece.
If it's an in-house print, or something that's going to change frequently, then it might not be so bad.
And of course you might get the whole "Look, my neighbor Bob is on that flyer. He lets his dog poop in my yard, I don't want to go to any church he goes to"
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
So they leave the church, so they have an affair, so they whatever...church isn't a place for perfect people. You end up pushing people away when you send them message that you have to be all cleaned up to attend, which is the message you send if you only have "the right people" on your print materials.
And for someone that turns their nose up at Bob because (fill in the blank) they're looking for excuses and will continue to be a sore if you set it up and walk on eggshells like that.
Don't focus on one person, but use real photos of real people doing church together, having community together, etc. People are craving transparency and authenticity right now, and while that doesn't rule out all stock photos, I'd urge you to embrace those two things.
I don't think Christ would erase Judas' picture from his photo album, I think he'd use it to tell a story and explain the beauty of forgiveness.
Originally posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
holycowcreative (a group admin) edited this topic 19 months ago.
|
|
As a pastor, I disagree completely. If someone starts molesting children and they are featured in your photography for marketing purposes, you think that's going be ok with people in your church? Not a chance.
If your marketing materials make people in your church feel awkward, how is that productive solely in terms of marketing? As someone who's worked for the same church for 10 years, I've seen this first hand and it's not always fun and produces a lot of tension that could be avoided.
Plus, for churches that arent as big and have a full time staff devoted to this sort of thing, it flat out saves time to use stock imagery vs setting up photo shoots and the likes.
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think if you just don't include children or child molesters, you should be safe. Or attractive people (to keep down on causing affairs?). Consider using emoticons.
Also - I'm a fan of stock simply because they're created for graphic design rather than for a scrapbook. Not to mention the time and talent investment to hold a photoshoot to capture the exact emotion you need.
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Hmm, interesting discussion. On the one hand like I said before I like real pictures, on the other hand I do remember constantly discussing how many people were gone from an old church's silhouette logo. I would reccomend bringing both sides of the issue to the pastor to get his opinion.
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Using real people has cost us before... we have a couple in a group shot that was on heaps of our branding divorce.. then one of them didn't want that photo used anymore. Had to redo posters, brochures, pull-up banners etc...
It's not realistic to say to that person "Just deal with it"...
So I'd say proceed with caution.. I prefer stock.
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Don't use people at all.
Use a picture of a dove.
Use Papyrus.
Use 3 grunge fonts.
Use low quality, blurry pictures.
Use....
Wait... :)
(just kidding)
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I like photojournalism style. It is real. Use a photo of a real event in your church, real people, real moment and real emotion. If the scene is set up then use stock, the whole thing is fake anyway.
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Watch it Andy...I will ban you!
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@theotherjoey Besides the fact that you shouldn't be using people's images in a logo to start with, if you're finding many people disappearing...that's a bigger problem than stock photography. And as the designer it's not about taking polls and going with popular vote, it's up to you to delivery the best solution and then allowing conversation.
@marycomm Right on. Using that approach takes care of a lot of problems, such as @suspectTV's. And as far as people wanting to be taken out, let them know you'll do that in the next print run.
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'll ban you back!
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
wooowww thanks for all the awesome insight guys. :)
I guess I should clarify a little futher the situation. I think if our church was more established then the real pictures may be a better idea than i think (although i'm still partial to the stock photos at this point..)
BUT. our MAIN church..which is very traditional...is branching out and starting a second church..which is going to be the exact opposite - VERY contemporary. Our main church has an organ, this one will have a keyboard playing along w/ the drums and electric guitar.
So technically we don't really have any current members to use in the pictures..and what they are wanting to suggest we use is pictures of people from the old church .
since we're starting something completely fresh and new: i am partial towards the stock photos
However, i do agree completely with the points that we shouldn't portray ourselves with a facade of something we're not. No, the church isn't perfect. But I don't think just because we have a stock photo of someone means we're declaring ourselves as having zero imperfections. Especially since we're not using the "drop dead gorgeous hollywood" type pictures. I've been trying to find people in the pictures that are closest to the type of people you would see in my small town...people that look real, not glamored up to be perfect.
I also like what green eyed monster was hitting on - maybe it all depends on what the medium is for the marketing? my particular instance is a flyer that will be printed in masses and used in mailing - sent out and saved for later, etc. Maybe real pictures would be better for something like the website, or a particular event flyer, (something easily changed or with short life) ?
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Not suggesting you are creating a facade. I am just saying if you are marketing a prayer service than use a photo of someone praying at a prayer service at your church. Better than stock (yes it needs to look like someone who you want to draw into this new church). If you are marketing a divorce group don't use a married couple from your church! Yikes! Use stock! If you are going to do a photo shoot of a member make sure it is someone that is a portrait of that ministry, group or whatever. You wouldn't market your band using people from your church that are not in the band, right?
I just use stock photos of people when I want to distance the subject matter from any individual. i.e a controversial subject. Or, sometimes, if I just don't have the photos I need! Sounds like this might be your situation. Good luck.
Originally posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
MaryComm edited this topic 19 months ago.
|
|
|
thank you! :)
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Amusingly - our graphic designer is attempting (at this very moment) to use a photograph taken by a staff member of their child ... It just doesn't work as well. Not to mention there is potential for hurt feelings if the picture doesn't work out. Stick with stock!
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I am guilty of sneaking in a picture of my little girl here and there, but then I've been told she looks like a "stock photo baby"
Posted 19 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Church Marketing Lab /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Church Marketing Lab discussion threads
