Virtually flawless & selling? Thx but no thx?
October 21, 2007 7:34 am
Hello Vint :) I saw your outfits at Ana Lutetia’s blog and I fell in love with your winter outfit. I just noticed that the ads in your store don’t really appeal to the customers. If it wasn’t for Ana Lutetia’s modeling I wouldn’t have considered buying it. What I suggest is to get some better modeling, poses and such. I can model for you if you want or a photoshooting studios could help you with your ads :) anyways, great stuff
Lyanis Lin, who wrote this, does has a good point. Sales went _seriously_ up ever since Ana Lutetia modelled my winter & autumn outfit and included an SLurl to my shop at Mardes. (Thank you, Miss Lutetia! ;)) Yet…
I can do beautiful models, if anybody would doubt that, just look at some of the avatars that are featured in my Flickr stream. I can also do sexy poses, appealing looks and the Princess Dream. Yet again, I refer you to my Flickr stream. But also, I’m not doing that very often any more lately. I’ll do retouching when needed, when asked or when feeling like it.
But as for the promo signs for my outfits, what’s wrong with having an avatar with mediocre looks and pose? Why do we all need to all be super sexy and have an appearance that starts with a capital A? Why does it need to look commercially branded to perfection?
I appreciate the avatars that are just mediocre. That have a bit of a belly. Or are extremely short or high. Or have tentacles. And claws. That lack - extreme - muscularity. That are just cute and not extremely hansom. It’s my Second Life after all, no? The Brave New Virtual world that I inhabit and help to imagine, create and not own anymore?
This is supposed to be my dream world, and I’d like it to be a dream world where not everybody needs to be perfect. Where not all needs to be shiny and heavily retouched. Where there is room for flaws. Even if those flaws are just copies of our RL flaws.
Am I wrong here? Should all be perfect except for the failures/limits that are inherent to Second Life? Should I ‘adjust’ and make one line of ad signs for the stuff that have a house style VintLabs look and that are shiny, modern and extremely appealing? And if I do so, then what exactly makes my Second Life differ from my First Life?
One confused Vint
This also reminds me of the ads I shot for Nicky Ree’s wedding gown. I still like them - a lot - but it probably wasn’t what she expected to see neither.
11 Responses to “Virtually flawless & selling? Thx but no thx?”
*aww* I’m touched
Vint, you are one of the best SL photographers that I know!! :)
(no thanks needed. your clothes are great!)
I know what you mean Vint. Flaws make us perfect.
Certainly I am more interested in Interesting Appearances rather than the usual SL “flawless” - ironing out all perceived “flaws” leaves something rather smooth and bland, I always think. I much prefer to see advertisements involving models who are interesting and different to the airbrushed and slider-tweaked norm. I do not look like that and it gives little indication as to what I would look like with the product concerned.
I have to say though that I would have used some different camera angles in the advert concerned, and probably some poses - not changing the avatars, but it would add a little dynamism. Encountered in-world, an un-AOed Ruth still has dynamism simply from their movement and the movement of one’s own camera viewing them, and that is something to reflect, I feel.
You know, I try to make my av less pointy edged in PS, and soften the hair a bit, but that’s mostly it on actual body retouching for my pics.
I know in commerce, looks are everything and it’s a “Battle of Beauty”, but I totally understand that such a thing is not a bust in SL, cuz what you see, is what you should get, and when you see a pair of shoes for example, that’s got prims with cloaking scripts in em, you never notice hidden alpha/transparency textures or messed up shiny layers or anything like that on the pic, but you do get that along. The rule of good advertising should be “tease, don’t trick” and for a lot of companies that’s a big problem in SL if you ask me…
Vint-
You’re absolutely right about modeling - it’s good and fine for models to look like interesting and non-standard.
But I think Lyanis’s point is a good one, and I know it influences my shopping. If the workmanship of the display is low, I’m safer concluding that the workmanship of the product is low. Why gamble?
If the owner didn’t put the time and effort into getting me interested enough in their product to buy it, why should I think they put time and effort into making an attractive, quality product? It’s too easy for “oh, I’ll just slap something up, and that’s good enough” to be a constant attitude.
The details of what makes a good display are different from what makes a good outfit, to be sure. Not everybody is good at both. But it’s a safe guess that anyone that doesn’t *value* both, doesn’t value either. Or, at least, when it comes to spending money, that’s the safe way to bet!
“This is supposed to be my dream world, and I’d like it to be a dream world where not everybody needs to be perfect.”
Completely agree with you, Vint! I think those perfect models aren’t very interesting to look at. I couldn’t say it better than Dandelion ;-)
Some weeks ago, I commented on Looker Lumets post about the miss SL Belgium 2007 elections..
“Veronique zei…
“..the judgement would be based on the appearance rather then..”
..and that is somehow a pitty.. because, while Second Life gives us the opportunity to do things different, all the time I see signs that real life clichés are not only confirmed, but even enhanced..
but who am I to blame.. me to, many times I just go with the flow..
its only human to be human I guess.. even when pixelated..”
And, this was his answer, quiet explanatory I guess (not about you personal Looker, but about the approach to SL in general..)
“Looker Lumet zei…
Veronique, the way it happens might be the same as in RL, but I am convinced that, in this case,the candidates were never in their lives in a beauty contest, and never will. So, SL will give, finally, more possibilities to the avatars than they ever could have in RL. And that is what SL is all about, not?”
So, while some are in SL to express themselves in one or another creative way, be it blogging, Flickering, building or even role playing.. a lot (most?) are there just pushed in their pursuit of happiness by the same marketing machines that drive our RL. Every woman wants to be a topmodel or, god forbid, the next Paris Hilton..
So Vint, … if it is the money you are after, and it are clothes you want to sell, better follow Lyanis or Sophrosynes advice.
But if you want to share Vint Falkens vision on SL.. continue like you are doing now… Be the PN of fashion business!!! … lol..
After all, you know why most keep returning to your blog..
Vint is a photographer? ;)
You’re ALL right! :)
Seriously… Lyanis is right about beautiful models and poses increasng sales. Ads in RL imply “you’ll be like the beautiful woman/lucky guy in this ad if you just buy this product,” and I’d be less than honest if I didn’t admit that like Charlie Brown thinking “THIS time Lucy won’t pull the football away,” I can fall for it even in SL.
OTOH, you have every right to make your ads as you wish… and in SL, we at least in theory can look the way we want, so that we shouldn’t be so desperately looking for the magic potion.
(The PN of the fashion business?! Far better to be the Martin Agency of the SL fashion business–they’re the people who did the Geico “so easy a caveman can do it” commercials. The “take the plunge” wedding gown photos sound like something they’d do, at least to me.)
Nice (and different) opinions. I have a few plans, which will be chosen depends on the SL finances. And some more thinking. =)
Care to comment?