I agree with Jonathan that too many photos would put a white paper over the top.

If I had to choose among them, I'd still go for graphs and charts before adding photos.

Hi All;

Who would have thought that a picture would have brought about so many words?

So, as in all things in life, the message is moderation.

Thanks all for your contribution. If only I had pictures of everyone!

Mike

I agree. There's a point, and each white paper will be different, where the line is and one too many images will be WAY too many.

I don't think HP had any intention of that being educational. They meant that to be marketing material.

JK -- You are right. I didn't read the thread fully.

Dianna,

I don't think any of us would disagree with you. The issue here isn't between having graphics or not having graphics. The question is when does adding too many photos puts a white paper over the top where it enters the brochure category.

My point with the enclosed HP white paper on VMWare shows that by adding one too many photos throughout the document diminishes its perception as a white paper. I feel that the example enters the brochure category instead. At this point, executives feel they are being "marketed to" rather than "educated" because they see this as a brochure.

It's another example of perception meeting reality.

Having just read (ok, skimmed) four or five white papers while traveling, my vote is for, "Yes! It's ok to add images (data, tables, graphs, diagrams, photos) to white papers."

Tightly packed copy, little white space, dense paragraphs -- after a few minutes my eyes started to glaze over. Give me white space, images, even stock photos -- anything to break up the intimidating blocks of text.

Mike,

I think the problem with HP is that they don't have ANY white paper design standards. Let us not forget the now infamous one page HP white paper that we discussed in the White Paper Source Forum:

http://www.businessweek.com/ad...

Having HP as my client, I can tell you this is NOT their standard white paper template. I would have to agree it looks a little to much like a brochure.

Mike

I'd have to say some of the photos in this paper fell into the "irrelevant, generic, boring, inane" stock photo category.

I'd kill the cover and page two photos and look for one good picture that delivered relevance, relevance, relevance...

There are 300 million ways to do things, BECAUSE there are 300 million Americans.

But that HP thang looked and felt like a brochure to me.

If it quacks like a duck and waddles when it walks ...

Jonathan - I actually think this is an acceptable use of stock photography.

It is not too much. If you killed page 2, I think it would look like a typical white paper.

Mike

Here's an example of what I mean:

This link is to a white paper by HP that was posted to the white paper section of their customer website. It liberally uses photgraphs throughout the document which blurs the line between a white paper and a brochure. It think it's a good example of what many executives view as "marketing fluff".

http://www.whitepapercompany.c...

I'm not at all sure why a relevant photograph would be referred to as "typical marketing kitsch" and "marketing fluff."

There's certainly no issue of purity here; white papers are marketing documents too (no one's funding them to make the world a better place), and if a photograph conveys additional information or illustrates an outcome, then I think they're very useful.

Poor quality or irrelevant photographs *would* cheapen the document, no doubt. The same way they cheapen Web sites and ads.

I think its a fine line, but in my opinon photos on the cover are designed to enhance the image of the sponsor of the paper.

Hey Jonathan - Why are photos ok on the cover and not on the inside?

Don't you think they can be used to convey a point?

As you said, that picture is worth a thousand words.

Is there a way to do it without looking like a brochure? - Mike

I think that photos are appropriate for front or back covers, but not in the main content of the white paper. Many executives are sensitive to white papers that appear as "marketing fluff" and it seems to me that the use of photos moves them closer to being a brochure than a white paper.

On the other hand, the use of graphic images, diagrams, and charts to reinforce complex or other highly technical messages compliments a white paper. It draws the reader in to the content and helps them retain key messages much more easily.

When I see an all text white paper, I can envision eyes glazing over as executives disconnect from the content all across the business landscape.

Anyway, in accordance with the now famous quote, isn't "a picture is worth a thousands words"?

Hi Pete and Heather - I think stock photos can have a place in white papers.

For example, I wrote a piece on information automation. We had a section on history. I found a great photo of a woman standing next to rows of filing cabinets. I spoke volumes for the point I was trying to convey--that we had come a long way in only 50 years.

Also, if you see this sample: http://www.stelzner.com/PDF/Ca... you can see how some stock photos were added to a white paper.

TOM - Thanks for your great response. I encourage you to write that white paper!

Mike

Michael;

Photographs suitable for white papers would depend entirely on subject matter. For example, a white paper on a new kind of graphite technology might have photos of the new material in action (golfers, fishers, military aircraft, aerospace, etc).

The more abstract the subject, the more difficult it is to illustrate. I imagine a paper on data mining would be tough to illustrate, but a decent photo of the end result (increased customer loyalty, financial savings, etc) wouldn't be out of the question.

Graphics of any kind would be helpful in reducing the "grey-out" common to white papers. I didn't have any graphics on hand when I wrote my "The Engagement Principles" executive white paper, so I bought a bright, colorful logo-style graphic and inserted a *lot* of white space.

Most of the white papers I've read (typically in the tech sector) are mind-numbingly "grey" in appearance. Using simple layout techniques would really improve readability and retention.

I once toyed with the idea of writing a "Ten Useful Direct Response Secrets for Corporate Writers" white paper, but never got around to it.

Stock photo has no place in a white paper. I feel that I'm still "green" as far as writing these papers, but I do know that the typical marketing kitsch has no place...

That said, diagrams and photos of the product you're trying to promote (so long as they aren't overdone) are important.

By pictures do you mean photographs or any type of image?

Diagrams, and charts might be instrumental in illustrating your point. A picture of a product might be relevant. And a before and after, side by side image, could do a lot to explain the value of a best practice scenario.

Hello Tom;

So maybe you can link to some photos you think are examples of the kind that would be appropriate in white papers?

What kind of photojournalism did you specialize in?

Mike

Sure... if they're relevant and any good. I *wouldn't* clutter a white paper with the same smiling office worker pap that defines most corporate Web sites.

I would fill it with pictures that were relevant to the topic.

And as a former photojournalist, I'd suggest the quality had better be good too...