Are You Using Pictures in White Papers?
By Michael StelznerWhite papers are typically blank pages with mostly words.
Susan recently asked, “Are pictures common on a white paper?”
This is a great question!
Because white papers are unique from brochures, they usually do NOT contain pictures in the traditional sense.
This means photographs of people, buildings, boardrooms and the like are usually not found in white papers.
HOWEVER, let’s talk about whether they should be in a white paper?
What say you?
If you're new here, be sure to signup for my newsletter and join 20,000 others. Thanks for visiting!
Receive email updates when new articles are posted.>> Related Articles on This Blog
November 2nd, 2006 at 9:22 pm
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…
November 2nd, 2006 at 9:31 pm
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
November 3rd, 2006 at 10:36 am
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.
November 3rd, 2006 at 10:43 am
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.
November 3rd, 2006 at 10:51 am
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.
November 3rd, 2006 at 12:01 pm
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/CardinalHealth-SupplyChain.pdf 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
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:27 pm
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”?
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:44 pm
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
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:29 pm
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.
November 3rd, 2006 at 3:37 pm
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.
November 3rd, 2006 at 5:17 pm
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.com/pdfs/VMware.pdf
November 3rd, 2006 at 5:24 pm
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
November 3rd, 2006 at 6:04 pm
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 …
November 3rd, 2006 at 7:08 pm
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…
November 4th, 2006 at 9:12 am
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
November 4th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
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/adsections/2004/pdf/0409_itwhitepaper.pdf
November 5th, 2006 at 6:27 am
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.
November 5th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
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.
November 5th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
JK — You are right. I didn’t read the thread fully.
November 5th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
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.
November 6th, 2006 at 7:40 am
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
November 6th, 2006 at 9:50 am
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.