The right question is not which of the two is more effective, but which customer question is left unanswered. Photo and video answer different questions, and the category decides which one matters more.

What photos do well

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

What video does well

  • Shows real size, movement, how it works.
  • Answers "how do I use it" and "what happens when I open it".
  • Gives a voice and a face, therefore produces trust.
  • Works in advertising, where photos now perform poorly.

Which matters more, by category

  • Fashion and footwear: video, for fit and movement. Photos alone feed returns.
  • Jewellery and small objects: photos, for detail, with a short video for scale.
  • Appliances and tools: video, because the question is always how it works.
  • Food: video, because sound and texture sell more than a still image.
  • Furniture: both, photos for style, video for real footprint.
  • Cosmetics: video, for texture and application.

How to split a small budget

Not in half. Photos cover the catalogue and stay valid a long time, so you do them once and properly. Video is bought in series because it burns out, especially in advertising. A workable ratio for an Italian store is one photo session a year and a continuous flow of creator video.

The sign that video is what you are missing

If customer service keeps getting the same questions about size, assembly or box contents, those questions are a video brief already written.

Keep reading

Find UGC creators in Italy →

Frequently asked questions

Which converts more?

It depends on the category, video in most of them.

Are photos still needed?

Yes, for catalogue, marketplaces and detail.

How should I split the budget?

Photos once a year, video as a continuous flow.

How do I know what is missing?

From the repeated questions to customer service.