Shutterstock models are swell make-believe Herman Cain endorsers


37 Responses to “Shutterstock models are swell make-believe Herman Cain endorsers”

  1. illicitizen says:

    If he could just get shutterstock models to vote for him…

  2. stayzuplate says:

    I just read some of the testimonials on that site and it’s all a bunch of delusional religious women going on about how they think it’s God’s will for our nation that Cain become the next president.

    • I’d like to do a detailed post-mortem of these devout (?) people in every election cycle, from candidate to supporter, and really find out what happens when God’s word falls through on a regular basis.

      I’m guessing this is where the “mysterious ways” escape clause gets to work overtime.

    • grs says:

      I would seriously question some of those “testimonials”. Candidates plugging their own name is not uncommon. Those “testimonials” could very well all be from the same person.

      • sagodjur says:

        The Lord led me to have my staff write fake testimonials in support of my candidacy and to actively deceive the voting populace because God supports my position that poor people are just lazy, exactly as Jesus said in the Bible! The loaves and the fishes were a catered lunch for hardworking business executives and the poor people just crashed the convention and stole the food instead of going out and getting a real job!

    • Marionetta says:

      Delusional white religious women.

      Go figure.

  3. awjt says:

    What about the free pizza?

  4. CaptainPedge says:

    Call me naive, but isn’t this the kind of thing stock photos are for?

    • corydodt says:

      As a political candidate, Cain presumably holds rallies, and you’d think he’d be able to put together a real photo-op with some ladies in about 3 seconds. You can speculate as to why they didn’t do that if you want to. Personally, I’d just hate to be one of the women in that photo, because fuck Herman Cain.

      • firedup says:

        But why? I don’t like Cain (well, as a satire he’s kind of hilarious…) but this is standard practice. Why hold a real photo-op when you can just buy a stock photo for less money and it’s just as good (probably much better.)

      • Lobster says:

        Given his reputation, I’d be surprised if even his supporters would want to stand quite that close to him. 

    • Mister44 says:

      I agree.  Even though he WAS getting good numbers, his actual fund raising is pretty meager. Holding photo shoots at this point would be rather unnecessarily. Had I been hired to do their site, I most likely would have just used stock photos.

      Remember too – this is selling politics, not the new iPhone. Until Obama, web and graphic design for political candidates vary between bad and gawd awful. I am sure if one were inclined, they would find all kinds of stock photos used on political sites.

  5. Ambiguity says:

    Stock photography is kind of stupid and lazy, but it’s not unique. I imagine you could find stock photos on every candidates website (as well as every “corporate” website, too).

  6. phor11 says:

    In a twist of irony, two of the women in the stock photo are now accusing Cain of sexual harassment.

  7. doug rogers says:

    They’re holding up the wrong finger.

  8. jimbo2112 says:

    Thumbs up for toucan stubs.

  9. TokenCapitalist says:

    Non-story. Moving along….

    Nothing wrong with stock photography for this use case. It’s cheaper and easier than real photos. PLUS it has the advantage of being professional. That’s what stock photos are for; especially around navbars and on main pages. The real campaign photos are for twitter and the blog.

    And no, I’m no Cain supporter. He’s an a$$ clown.

  10. The big question is, did Cain* personally select the photo from the stock site? Licking his lips all the while?

    *I had to resist spelling it as KANE, in all caps.

  11. sagodjur says:

    It looks like they’ve removed the photo from the website now. There’s just a gap where the image was.

  12. voiceinthedistance says:

    I’m curious what happened to FOR?  Was that a controversial word, or something, because removing the photo should have been a separate act from deleting a word of text.  Perhaps they are “reevaluating” their support?

  13. I’m unsurprised that it’s been removed. Using a stock photo in a manner that implies that the model is endorsing a political view is almost certainly against the terms of the license.

  14. Joe Buck says:

    If you work as a “creative”, you probably still think that this kind of use of stock photography is OK.  But since the technology to track down the sources of images is now widely available, any politician using a stock image should be aware that it will soon be exposed as a stock image, and any implication that people in stock images are supporters of the candidate will be quickly blown up.  And the same will soon be true of other uses of stock images in advertising.  But hey, the economy sucks.  It won’t hurt you to hire a real person and pay him/her if you need a photograph.  Stock photos will still be fine if you need a picture of a doughnut or something.

  15. Thebes says:

    This is what you get when a Womanizing Godfather runs for POTUS

    When is he dropping out anyway? He’s obviously unelectable, apart from his moral issues with the ol’ trouser snake- he is too easily blackmailed by former lovers and possible love children.

  16. Aaron Swain says:

    Say what you will about this being a legitimate use of stock photography, I can’t help but notice that this generic thumbs up photo has now been replaced by a (badly composited) pic of a smiling Mr. and Mrs. Herman (during happier times, apparently) less than 24 hours later.
     Could it be that Boing Boing actually impacts the course of a political campaign ?? (albeit a totally ridiculous one that is utterly doomed)

  17. Gawker readers came up with an appropriate replacement  for the previous banner:

Leave a Reply