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 matters more.

What photos do well

  • Show shape, colour and material detail.
  • Are read in half a second, with no sound and no attention.
  • Serve the catalogue, marketplaces and the storefront.
  • Cost less per item 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 happens when I open it".
  • Gives a voice and a face, and therefore builds trust.
  • Works in advertising, where stills 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 and 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. For most Spanish stores the ratio is one photo session a year and a continuous flow of creator video.

How to know what you are missing

Look at the repeated questions in customer service. What is written there is the brief for your next video, word for word.

Keep reading

Find UGC creators in Spain →

Frequently asked questions

Which converts more?

It depends on the category, video in most.

Are photos still needed?

Yes, for catalogue, marketplaces and detail.

How should I split the budget?

Photos once a year, video continuously.

Where does the brief come from?

From the repeated support questions.