UX Research: Can I improve conversion rates with the use of lifestyle over still life product photography

Question

I work for a large UK-based clothing retailer. After some initial customer testing with our product details page there has been some debate on the following question:

Do customers generally react better to lifestyle-based product photography (ie, being used/worn by a model) or still life shots (product only, no humans)?

My personal guess is that the majority of users will favour the lifestyle type images and distance themselves from the rather bland still life style, which in our case displays the clothing on a mannequin against a plain background. The still life style (particularly in the context of a fashion business) strikes me as somewhat cold. Generally I believe that fashion brands try to instill a sense of fashion (which by definition is creative and energetic, not static). Personally I think the powers-that-be believe that not hiring models is cheaper...it's probably true but that's not what I'm here to debate.

However I like to think I'm a practical fellow and so I'm seeking any established research that would support - or discredit - my theory. Can sales conversion rates be improved (increased) with the use of lifestyle imagery (showing live models interacting/wearing the products), as opposed to person-less mannequin based photographs?

Thank you to anyone who can point me in the right directions of any such research.

Answer 1

Jakob Nielsen has featured some eye-tracking studies on eCommerce product category pages.

From the page: Photos as Web Content he shows the difference between Potterybarn (who use items shown in-context of actual use) and Amazon (who only show the product on its own):

It's clear to see that the images where products are shown in-context at Potterybarn gain more attention. (However the article does not mention whether or not this equates through to increased conversions, just that products in-context gained significantly more visual attention).

There is also a good article over at SmashingMagazine about how to use photos to sell more online. One interesting point there is:

Look Professional

The rules of portraiture dictate that a simple uncluttered background will focus interest on the subject. This rule is applied well on product gallery pages, where product images are cut out and presented against a white background.

Here they reference John Lewis with another comment that:

John Lewis, the UK department store, takes a painstaking approach to product photography, often taking up to 30 minutes to style individual items within a vast product range. The company defines and adheres to a particular photographic style. The results are stunning because the style is applied consistently.

This really is at odds with the idea that in-context images are preferable to bespoke photography because with the John Lewis approach the whole site itself uses the same image style giving the site a consistent look and feel throughout.

It may well depend on the target audience of your site. Are they likely to prefer the professional approach of John Lewis, or are they more suited to the etsy / ebay style?

Answer 2

I'll get to the reason why further down, but you don't have to choose.

I'd be surprised if the retailers (your competitors?) actually publish results of their expensive research... oh hang on - the results are in full view on their own websites!

OK, so the figures etc aren't there to make hard evidence based decisions on, but lets assume that the retailers with any common sense and care for the customer experience (CX) will have done some research into what product images to put on their websites, and actually listened and acted on that research.

So right off the bat, there's research you can do yourself - look at what other retailers are doing. Visit the websites of clothing retailers in the United Kingdom and see what they do with men's shirts and women's dresses for example.

You'll find a mix for sure, like JohnLewis.com using still life, BHS.co.uk using lifestyle, Debenhams.co.uk actually doing a mix, and Next.co.uk doing mostly still life but with an occasional token demonstration lifestyle picture.

But you'll also find some surprises.

Take a look at TedBaker.com. This is their men's shirts page:

All the pictures are still life - but when you hover over them you get the life style image:

So for example hover over the purple shirt...

Hover over the white shirt...

And that is actually a pretty neat solution to the problem because it caters for both groups that have a strong preference towards either still life or lifestyle pictures. And it allows users to see the product in detail (collar, buttons, sleeves, cuffs, pockets) as well as what it looks like on (which can also lead to the user purchasing the additional items shown in order to 'get the look')

So you don't have to decide - do both - you'll get a much better user experience as a result. I just don't have figures to allow you to determine ROI for the increased effort involved.

Answer 3

I won't give an answer - because I don't think there is an answer. I think it depends on the retailer and the market.

I also think that it's not the only dimension you can pick things on. For example I've seen quite different results from flats (like the way the individual clothes are displayed in this answer) vs mannequin shots.

Or fully body shots of real people, vs shots where the heads are cropped. Or in-context shots of people using products vs separate products.

If it was me in your shoes - this is how I'd approach the problem.

1. The good news is that I'm working for a large clothing retailers - so I have the numbers for experiments, and probably the business savvy to realise that optimising conversions is a good thing.

2. I look to the next sale / special offer / etc. that's going to involve an email campaign. If there isn't one we invent one.

3. I shoot just the small subset in the sales campaign as flats, mannequin, models and in-context shots.

4. I split test the options on the mail campaign and see which converts most.

5. Since I'm leveraging off the time and money that was already going to be invested in the mail shot the experiment cost is not going to be a really significant extra.

6. I'd then use the results from that to see if it looks worth our while to try a larger scale experiment.

(Also, and I know you said that this wasn't an issue, but shooting with models for a product range can be an order of magnitude or two more expensive that flats or mannequin shots - time as well as money. You need to be sure that the increased conversions, if any, are going to make up for that. It can't be ignored by the business).