When I was in high school, I was keenly interested in graphic design and ordered stock photo catalogs from Getty and other major stock houses. While, as a high school kid, I was floored by the image quality, even then I found their topical matter rather trite and it's funny to see just how low the visual literacy of the American buying public is for many of these shots to work in ads.

Now though, I have to wonder why more original photos are not taken for ads: I can understand that for something like NASCAR or an offshore oil platform how stock is far more cost-effective but for happy famalies and such it seems getting original content is easier. Another thing that amused me, even as a high schooler, was how typical all the business people look in stock photography: they are almost always like five white men, one black guy, one asian, and a woman. And the woman is always pretty, asian, or both. She often looks like a Bond girl . . . sorry, but at my office the ladies up in legal look more like Laura Bush than a Bond girl . . .

it seems getting original content is easier.

How is it easier? For a few hundred to a few thousand dollars, depending on usage, the art director can surf through an image database, find something suitable and have done with it. Much easier than hiring a photographer and supervising a shoot, and surely more cost effective as well.