Can too many Vehicle Photos be a bad thing?

[Jeff Kershner]

The Vast.com vehicle listing website by itself might not be a big player. However, they power the inventory for a large portion of vehicle listing sites that aren't Autotrader, Cars.com and CarGurus.

As I type this out I see that @Ed Brooks already pointed this out.

 

[ed.brooks]

A couple of years ago the AimGroup published some data comparing the various listing sites. While @yagoparamo wants to discount some of these as "niche" players, they get substantial traffic.

 

[joe.pistell]

Shoppers have a job to do.
It takes them weeks to do it.
They visit 20+ sites while doing it.

I want to know where do they go back to again and again. These are the sites that move metal.

 

[Chris Leslie]

Here's how I see 9 pics vs 30 pics.

IMO, this is a UI (User Interface) problem that *our* industry has. Too many Photos can be like too much text. From our car shoppers P.O.V., not all photos have equal value, just like not all options have equal value (i.e. Navi vs Intermittent Wipers).

Shoppers want it all. They want to see the most important shots 1st, then, IF this car has their interest, allow them to see all the rest of the pics. Shoppers want us to help them be smarter, faster, better. This also means helping them scan our VDPs.

This makes me think of the cars that have individual shots of each tire for example. Pictures for pictures sake kind of mentality.

 

[Alex Snyder]

I joined the world for the first time as a .....gasp.... customer

I've had some service department dealings since leaving the family business, but needed to buy a car for the woman. Holy shit did this experience teach me a few things that I never would have understood as a dealer. For one, all dealers I worked with are made to force a customer into their process. That part really sucks, but I get it and am planning to expand on this further. It has given me some excellent ideas for new product!

On the photo front both my girlfriend and I found 9 photos annoying. It was never enough and the photos always seemed rushed. I wanted to see if a car had specific features and you just can't figure that out with the limitation of 9. Personally I cannot tell you the right number of images, but I can tell you the cars where the photographer knew what to highlight were obvious.

For example: Fords are worth more when they have sunroofs. When there aren't photos of the sunroof all one can do is assume the dealer is greedy or the photographer was lazy. I know neither is the intent, but that was our perception....and I'm a 20+ year veteran who knows better!!!

My girlfriend, not being a veteran, was 100% opposed to submitting a lead or calling. She only wanted to make a visitation decision based on the photos. When the photos weren't there she gave a little bit of weight to the specs/options listed on the VDP. After watching her, her mom, her friends, and anyone else she shared cars with I am 1000000000% sold on the fact that photos make ups.

P.S. My girlfriend's family believes sending leads is a complete waste of time that just ends in relentless inbox hassling.

 

[ggarvin]

First, the conclusion of "image fatigue" is unsubstantiated and a pure opinion even if the data itself was valid and statistically relevant. There is no basis for that conclusion beside conjecture.

When I read statistics, you have to consider the bias and methods that are part of the hypothesis. I don't think that Vast really has any skin in this game so I don't think it is purposely biased however the methods are unclear and the methodology still remains a mystery. When a statistic clearly flies in the face of common logic it requires pretty strong evidence to the contrary - and this does study doesn't present that. Finally, when companies like Cars.com and ATC have strong, statistically relevant data that directly opposes the information presented in this study... well, that is enough to make this go away for ever. And, there are some other good parts of this white paper that aren't getting the attention that this part is

 

[jmcreavy]

This makes me think of the cars that have individual shots of each tire for example. Pictures for pictures sake kind of mentality.

My photo process includes a picture of the tire tread depth to show it has good tires on it and then 4 pictures (one of each wheel) to show the condition of the wheels. 40 Photos is the process I built and trained at 2 stores and we had a ton of compliments from customers who felt we were being more "transparent" than those who only had a few photos if any photos at all.

There is no image fatigue if you are not trying to do the "Myspace" angle shots and actually show the vehicle and the features people find to be benefits to them.


/Mic Drop "BOOM"

 

[Chris Leslie]

Woah, Pump the brakes fellas.

Look, if data is valid and statistically relevant. Any theories you pose based on said data have statistical validity and therefor are not based on conjecture.

However the idea of being more transparent by taking a couple photos of tire tread is exactly conjecture.

Depending on what side of the table you sit on. This argument goes round and round so at some point you need to choose a path. That path may be the way of you internally and how many pics of your whip you feel is necessary on your site to move that metal. Or you could be on the side of the table taking the pictures who have to choose a fixed number because of pricing. They can’t affordably take infinite pictures. Maybe one of the sides is a vendor like autotrader / vauto and are using listing logic to give you a pretty good idea of vehicles similar to that one and how much merchandising it takes to get more SRP/VDP.

So as a business which road do you take? Do you choose your ability to make proper choices, do you choose a fixed based pricing package or do you choose the road that provides some statistical validity (not conjecture) that might help you be more efficient in marketing cars.

I’m not saying anyone is any better than the other because I really don’t know. But any direction we choose is going to be a bad one in someones mind. am i wrong?

 

[joe.pistell]

I agree with @ggarvin, The white paper's conclusions are relevant to VAST's business.

VAST SELLS LEADS.
CAR DEALERS SELL CARS.

Obsessing about Leads is soooo 2005.

 

[joe.pistell]

If Vast could partner with some dealers and follow it's leads into a sale, then you'd have an awesome study.