What I found strange -- The heatmap seemed to go from "eye to product" in the left heatmap.

However, on the right heatmap there wasn't any significant distinction in the heatmap at all. (I presume the heatmap is a differential, therefore it's a net on that one map rather than an absolute difference between the two).

Either way, from the explanation I'd have still expected the right heatmap to focus on the eye-contact of the model? Whereas the actual example seem to suggest when the model is looking directly at us we somewhat ignore it?

Edit: Oh ok. For some reason, the non-linkjacked article does have a more significant heatmap around the eye contact... I wonder why this article has a different map? have they modified it? http://www.bunnyfoot.com/articles/not_focus_groups.htm

See http://www.bunnyfoot.com/img/sun4.jpg vs http://www.grokdotcom.com/wp-content/uploads/Bryan/heatmap_s... (right map)

Coincidentally, what a great way to protect your content from linkjacking, a la Digg. Post the article with intentionally wrong content and than fix it afterwards.

If that's the non-linkjacked article, how come it has lower res pictures? Good find though.

As for the stronger heat intensity on the shifting eyes (on either source), I guess one could explain it as the subject going back and forth investigating (probably somewhat subconsciously) what exactly she is looking at.

The first example in the article would push me away, but for a different reason: Every site that uses Stockphotography so ovious and in such a huge format is most likely scam of some sort. It's like the blinking banners of old times.

Yes, using a stock photograph in your site design means that you're running a scam. Honest folk take their own advertising photographs.

Give me a break.

No, it means you're trying way too hard to convince me using unrelated smokescreens, and oftentimes borders on deception.

How many times have you seen, on a support page or whatnot, a picture of a smiling call center guy with a headset? It's probably the most common usage of a stock photo.

But that isn't your support guy, in fact a lot of these places have the founders answering their own phones - so why pretend to be a big company when you are not?

What sort of idiot would consider a photo convincing in the first place? It is just there to attract notice/attention; the point of the article is that they often attract attention to the wrong part of the ad.

I'm not saying you should pretend to be a bigger company, but there's a huge gap between pretending to be bigger and more professional than you are and running a scam.

I didn't say scam - but it does come off as dishonest and misleading. If you have a smiling support guy on staff, yeah, by all means, put his photo up on your support page - I appreciate little human gestures like that. But stock photography in its various common internet forms is just laziness.

I wouldn't call it laziness. It is often being frugal. You would be surprised at the number of large companies that use stock photos as well. I think you would also be surprised at the amount of stock photography that you have not idea is stock photography, because the designer either manipulated the image or the chose a good photo for the purpose of the page.

I think we are limiting ourselves here in how stock photography can be used.

You didn't say scam, but my original comment was in response to someone who did.

I agree that it's lazy and makes a bad impression for hackers, though I doubt 99% of normal people would notice or care.

Most people won't notice. The ones who do notice will probably find some other excuse.

You're talking past each other.

You're talking about what is the case. He's talking about perception. If your site has any of the same signals of an illegitimate site, then you're in trouble. He has no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt and spend enough time poking around your site to convince him that you're legit.

If you have to use such an unrelated association in order to elicit a good feeling from me, I'm going to mistrust your approach at a minimum, if not also your product.

In other words, if you don't find the idea of your product itself sexy enough, why should I? Then again, I'm not the typical consumer; maybe I just don't fit your demographic. Either way: Next!

I wonder if creating an association with a pretty face is longer lasting if he/she is looking right at you, so that even though the initial focus on the product is weaker, the longer lasting association of beauty and the product pay-off more.

I think that's the whole point - that you get too caught up into the pretty face and you focus less on the product which renders your ad/image ineffective.

What I meant was that yes, the initial product focus is reduced, but there may be a longer lasting and subtler association of the product with the physical attractiveness, which in the end may be more valuable.

In other words; I don't necessarily believe that the audience focusing more directly on the product actually sells it better. Most products are boring (i.e. this is just more shampoo), but sexual stimulation is not. Focusing on the sex rather than the boring product is probably to the benefit of sales.

In case your into selling real estate, software or marketing etc. don't rely on pretty faces at all. People trust people who look like experts not like call center agents, that means they are older and look like real people.