I was going to write an Etailers Don't post about e-stores that only have one photo per product but I didn't have much to say beyond "it's not good enough". As I went through different websites for research I thought about how etailers decide to display their goods on sale. When it comes to fashion there are three options - use a model, dress up a mannequin, or create an "invisible mannequin" effect.
Before I compare the three options, I find the method used in creating an "invisible mannequin" pretty interesting. I thought they use some kind of wire frame to prop up the outfit, but instead it's done using a mannequin and some photoshopping.
As expected, they take a photo of the outfit on the mannequin, but what I didn't expect is that they also take a photo with the mannequin wearing the outfit back to front and inside out.
By photoshopping the two images together and removing the mannequin from the image you get this.
Pretty nifty isn't it?
Now back on topic. I'm going to use Diane von Furstenburg and her iconic wrap dresses to compare the three display options. First, the model. This is from the DvF website. Pretty simple, the model is doing her best impression of a mannequin.
Or the model can strike a pose or two.
From Shopbop
And from Bloomingdale's
The dress can also be part of a "look" (from Shopbop)
Some etailers use models but "chop off" the model's head to focus on the item on display (from Net-a-Porter).
Next up is the headless mannequin (from Zoe)
It's also favoured by The Outnet
The mannequin can be suitably accessorised too.
Last but not least, some choose to let the clothes do all the talking.
From Net-a-Porter
And The Outnet
So which method is the best? From a customer point of view it's nicest to see the outfit on a model, but it is the most costly option for the etailer (mannequin don't need make up, or payment for their service). The etailers save on makeup and hair when they opt for "headless models" shots, but I find it a bit strange to not see the face of the model.
The headless mannequins are somewhat creepy but if suitably accessories it can still create an interesting look. A skin-toned colour mannequin is much better than a grey one IMO - the latter looks too ghostly!
The "invisible mannequin" is the cleanest look as there is nothing else to distract your attention from the item on display, but somehow it leaves me a bit cold.
From an etailer's perspective, the biggest question is: Which method is most likely to make you buy the item on display?
Personally speaking, I don't think it matters. Despite my opinions above, if I like the item I'll get it regardless of how it is displayed. Well, that is my consciousness speaking. I don't know if a model is likely to subconsciously make me more likely to buy something.
Are you more likely to shop from websites that use models? Or do you favour the "invisible mannequin" look?
P.S. I really want a DvF dress now ...
Before I compare the three options, I find the method used in creating an "invisible mannequin" pretty interesting. I thought they use some kind of wire frame to prop up the outfit, but instead it's done using a mannequin and some photoshopping.
As expected, they take a photo of the outfit on the mannequin, but what I didn't expect is that they also take a photo with the mannequin wearing the outfit back to front and inside out.
 |
| Photo credit: Chris Brock Photography |
 |
| Photo credit: Chris Brock Photography |
Now back on topic. I'm going to use Diane von Furstenburg and her iconic wrap dresses to compare the three display options. First, the model. This is from the DvF website. Pretty simple, the model is doing her best impression of a mannequin.
Or the model can strike a pose or two.
From Shopbop
And from Bloomingdale's
The dress can also be part of a "look" (from Shopbop)
Some etailers use models but "chop off" the model's head to focus on the item on display (from Net-a-Porter).
Next up is the headless mannequin (from Zoe)
It's also favoured by The Outnet
The mannequin can be suitably accessorised too.
Last but not least, some choose to let the clothes do all the talking.
From Net-a-Porter
And The Outnet
So which method is the best? From a customer point of view it's nicest to see the outfit on a model, but it is the most costly option for the etailer (mannequin don't need make up, or payment for their service). The etailers save on makeup and hair when they opt for "headless models" shots, but I find it a bit strange to not see the face of the model.
The headless mannequins are somewhat creepy but if suitably accessories it can still create an interesting look. A skin-toned colour mannequin is much better than a grey one IMO - the latter looks too ghostly!
The "invisible mannequin" is the cleanest look as there is nothing else to distract your attention from the item on display, but somehow it leaves me a bit cold.
From an etailer's perspective, the biggest question is: Which method is most likely to make you buy the item on display?
Personally speaking, I don't think it matters. Despite my opinions above, if I like the item I'll get it regardless of how it is displayed. Well, that is my consciousness speaking. I don't know if a model is likely to subconsciously make me more likely to buy something.
Are you more likely to shop from websites that use models? Or do you favour the "invisible mannequin" look?
P.S. I really want a DvF dress now ...
