The right question is not which of the two sells more, but which customer doubt is left unanswered. And in Argentina there is a doubt that does not appear in other markets: whether it is worth committing to instalments.

What photos do well

  • Show shape, colour and material detail.
  • Are read in half a second, with no sound.
  • Serve the catalogue, marketplaces and the shop window.
  • Cost less per product and are easy to update.

What video does well

  • Shows real size, movement and how it works.
  • Answers "how do I use it" and "what arrives in the box".
  • Gives a face and a voice, and therefore trust.
  • Works in paid media, where stills now perform poorly.

Why instalments change the answer

When something is bought over twelve instalments, the question stops being whether you can pay for it and becomes whether it will still be useful by the last one. A studio photo does not answer that: a video showing the product after a period of use does, or someone explaining why they still use it. It is the content least often produced and most often needed.

Which matters more, by category

  • Clothing and footwear: video, for fit and movement.
  • Appliances and technology: video, for function and durability.
  • Jewellery and small accessories: photos for detail, a short video for scale.
  • Food: video, for sound and texture.
  • Furniture: both, photos for style, video for real size.

How to split a small budget

Photos once a year, done properly, because they cover the catalogue. Video as a continuous flow, because it burns out in paid media.

Keep reading

Find UGC creators in Argentina →

Frequently asked questions

Which converts more?

It depends on the category, video in most.

What does video add here?

It answers the durability doubt behind instalments.

Are photos still needed?

Yes, for catalogue and detail.

How should I split the budget?

Photos once a year, video continuously.