Anti-Gay-Marriage Group Couldn’t Find a Happy Family of Their Own? July 17, 2010

Anti-Gay-Marriage Group Couldn’t Find a Happy Family of Their Own?

By Guest Contributor
July 17, 2010

***Update***: You all were right. I was wrong. I had no idea using stock photography was such an accepted thing. I didn’t want to delete the posting and the comments with it — I thought that would be dishonest — so I’ll just keep it here, with this apology up front. Feel free to disregard this posting.

…

The National Organization for Marriage has been touring the country in a bus, peddling its anti-gay agenda.

As one blogger points out, though, NOM couldn’t even find any families to pose for those bus images.

They had to resort to stock photos.

Here’s hoping someone in those photos is gay…

(via Joe. My. God.)

Previous Post
Would Atheists Donate Money to a Peace-Seeking Religious Organization?
Next Post
Frisco Atheists Meeting with Pastor
Browse Our Archives
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Justice Has No God

    This is simply full of win.

  • Not that I am in any way defending NOM, but I don’t see how using stock photos instead of taking their own proves that they couldn’t find families willing to pose. It may have just been simpler for them logistically.

    That said, I don’t think teaching intolerance makes for happy family life.

  • I just wonder if they got model releases.

  • Jeff Dale

    Not that I am in any way defending NOM, but I don’t see how using stock photos instead of taking their own proves that they couldn’t find families willing to pose.

    Agreed. Use of stock photos is a common practice, regardless of the message being advertised. Why would they put out a call for models to pose as a nice, traditional-looking family, set up screening shoots, and decide from among those which ones to use, when tons of perfectly good photos have already been created and are available to browse and buy at minimal cost, time, and trouble?

  • Don Rose

    Well, they took a big chance. Any one of the people in those photos might be gay. Now that would be great! I suppose they had to go with stock photos though. Have you ever seen what an ugly, bitter group those people are?

  • Reginald Selkirk

    The guy putting his arm around his “daughter” is a bit creepy.

  • Amy

    It’d be awesome if even one of those people came out and said, if not that they were gay, that they supported same sex marriage.

  • The atheist bus “DON’T LABEL ME” Campaign used stock photos too… how is this any different?

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6925781.ece

  • Dan

    I have to add my support to “Whore of All the Earth” and “Jeff Dale”. It’s much easier, and cheaper to use stock images. No need to pay a camera person with equipment and studio, pay actors, spend the time looking proofing the photos, etc. Just select one from the net and slap it on the side of a bus.

    The printing on the side of the bus was probably quite expensive, so maybe they had to cut corners with coming up with the photo itself.

  • Little James

    Count me among those who thing this is an empty criticism.

  • CJ

    I agree that this is a lame attempt to criticize them. istockphoto picture are so cheap it would have been foolish for them to get models, a photographer, etc when perfect pictures were available anyway.

    I have used istockphoto for my business even though I know how to use and own an SLR, they are that cheap. It was more cost effective to pay $5 for the pics than it was to get my camera, wait for a day with appropriate lighting a take the shots.

  • dizzymama

    Slow news day or something?

  • Dylan

    This is quite obviously a form of illiteracy to how graphic design works. The designer usually doesn’t worry about getting ‘original’ photos. We just go to stock sites, or fractal sites, and remix what they have. It is the most reasonable and easy way to do so.

    I am by no means supporting the anti-gay point of view, I am simply saying that the ‘reporting’ is flawed.

  • Bob

    It’s amusing, but it’s no different from any commercial or ad – the people we see/hear are actors and voiceover artists, not necessarily real people relating real experiences.

    So the use of stock photos isn’t ‘HA! They couldn’t find happy families to use!’ but a more rational caveat about sales pitches. The images were chosen to appeal to the pitch line of normalcy and happy, well-adjusted lives.

  • This group isn’t selling a product, they are selling a message. A message of wholesomeness. Most marketers are selling a message, but in this case it’s all about the message. The “product”-such as it is-is invisible.
    For an organization that is not a multinational corporation with deep pockets, it would make sense to go the extra mile to vet certain marketing flights before approval. One minor misstep and they end up with egg on their face and without the means to bounce back as quickly as a large commercial enterprise would.
    Also, let’s not forget the embarrassment that Proctor and Gamble endured after it was revealed that the wholesome young mother depicted on their Ivory Soap box had moved to the west coast to produce porn.
    At the very least, it would be irresponsible to use stock photos on a marketing campaign such as this without vetting the models first.

  • Reginald Selkirk said:

    The guy putting his arm around his “daughter” is a bit creepy.

    It also doesn’t look physically possible. Imagine how long the guy’s arm must be to do that. This sounds like a job for Photoshop Disasters!

  • Aj

    The reason why it would be funny if one of the models were gay, is because it highlights how superficial and stupid these kinds of images are. What do these images really have to do with their message? Absolutely nothing.

  • JD

    The atheist bus “DON’T LABEL ME” Campaign used stock photos too… how is this any different?

    I’m curious, doesn’t that article reinforce the point of the “Don’t Label Me” campaign? I mean, really, are 7 and 8 year old children really that cognizant of what beliefs are? They may be children of Christians, but I don’t think it’s fair to say the children are Christians. They may be able to answer certain questions in a specific way as in a catechism, I’m skeptical that they really really understand the answers they might have memorized.

  • Eskomo

    What about the mother’s hand on the daughter. Of course, she may be a basketball player.

  • Sven

    “You all were right. I was wrong.”
    I respect anyone who can say that publicly.

  • Heidi

    You know, I get that stock photos are cheap and convenient. But am I the only person tired of seeing vacant, generic people in every print advertisement? It’s like “hello, we could be selling anything. They just needed a smiling moron to paste on here.”

    Prevalent use of stock photos aside, I would love it if one or more of those models was gay.

  • The atheist bus “DON’T LABEL ME” Campaign used stock photos too… how is this any different?

    I’m curious, doesn’t that article reinforce the point of the “Don’t Label Me” campaign? I mean, really, are 7 and 8 year old children really that cognizant of what beliefs are? They may be children of Christians, but I don’t think it’s fair to say the children are Christians. They may be able to answer certain questions in a specific way as in a catechism, I’m skeptical that they really really understand the answers they might have memorized.

    Yep!

  • Apparently, no one quite fit their ideal expectation of a Christian family. Not surprising. Unrealistic standards, built from an unreal world view.

  • Drew M

    The guy putting his arm around his “daughter” is a bit creepy.

    No, it isn’t. This is one of the things I loathe about the West. Everyone assumes the worst in men. I don’t suppose you find the “mom” creepy for holding the younger “daughter” in the same way? No, of course you don’t.

    As far as the stock photo thing goes, it’s beem addressed.

  • Pete

    Sven Says:

    July 18th, 2010 at 12:20 am
    “You all were right. I was wrong.”
    I respect anyone who can say that publicly.

    Me too.

    No shame in being wrong sometimes.

    Shame is when you think you is never wrong.And even worse cant ever even admit being wrong.

  • Drew M

    I browsed through istockphoto and I love the fact that NOM gave money to a company that also sells this photo:

    Young Gay Men Kiss

  • So they didn’t get any people to pose in front of the bus. They got a nice BP pump to pose in front of the bus.

  • Heidi wrote:

    You know, I get that stock photos are cheap and convenient. But am I the only person tired of seeing vacant, generic people in every print advertisement? It’s like “hello, we could be selling anything. They just needed a smiling moron to paste on here.”

    Good point. I see the same pic used for ads for all sorts of things. I understand the cost issue, but personally, I would love to see more personalized photos taken. It adds a nice bit of reality to the product they are selling.

    On this post, though, I think Hemant is being a bit hard on himself. While others have voiced their stock photos are used everywhere, I think the NOM should at least be willing to find real families to put on the side of their traveling road show. Same with the atheists. Take an original photo.

  • Jeff Dale

    Drew M:

    The guy putting his arm around his “daughter” is a bit creepy.

    No, it isn’t. This is one of the things I loathe about the West. Everyone assumes the worst in men. I don’t suppose you find the “mom” creepy for holding the younger “daughter” in the same way? No, of course you don’t.

    Well said. Thank you for addressing that point.

  • Alexis

    A friend of mine who graduated from Grove City College many years ago told me that they did some promotional filming during break time while he was there. They brought in models to act as students. According to him, the actual student population wasn’t blue-eyed and blonde enough to appeal to their target audience.

  • plutosdad