Another example that using cheap stock pictures can be too expensive, especially when it mangles a company’s reputation.
A US magazine called VegNews is all about being vegetarian or vegan. Rather than using custom food photography, the magazine decided to use some cheap online stock pictures because they were, uh, cheap.
The problem is that the food photos were not vegetarian or vegan. The magazine just passed them off as being so.
Last week, a blog article on Quarrygirl.com, titled “VegNews is putting the MEAT into vegan issues”, matched up some of the published “vegan” photos with the corresponding original “meaty” stock photos.
So, we’ve established that there are many, many pictures of MEAT in both the VegNews print magazine, and online. Why does this matter? After all, a picture is just a picture, right? Unfortunately, this situation exposes a clear issue with the editorial integrity of Veg News. They are KNOWINGLY publishing misleading pictures of MEAT dishes, and passing them off as vegan. If they will stoop that low (and appear to have been doing so for years) what else can we not trust about this erstwhile publication?
(…)
Our conclusion, therefore, is that VegNews has serious editorial integrity issues, and cannot be trusted.
Apparently, after receiving many complaints, the magazine offered a non-apology apology (link to PDF). It was later forced to do more damage control and offer a real apology (link to PDF).
Before a company decides to use cheap stock pictures to save a few bucks, it should first put a price on its corporate image and reputation.
