[mkohlmyr]

I realize this is not related to the actual article, but having looked at their website (http://www.workgroup.im/) this really struck me.

Does anyone else find it a little bit gross when companies take stock photographs, give them a name and write stories about how they use the product? It's clearly meant to work as a social proof and to look almost like an endorsement from a peer.

It's just another warmer, fuzzier dark pattern in my opinion.

[sciurus]

It's especially jarring because their photo of "James Gold" is actually my coworker http://andymatthews.net/

[krallja]

Are you sure your coworker isn't actually a stock photo?

[daveguy]

Yeah, the way they are doing it with stock photos and made up personalities is a bit off-putting. I definitely prefer when they make it obvious they are describing use case scenarios by using names like "Freelancer Fred" and "Associate Annie".

It kind of makes you wonder if this whole article is just PR/advertising to say "look at us! no bots! personal touch!"

[egjerlow]

Totally agree - if I didn't look specifically for what you're mentioning, I would have certainly taken it as real people giving endorsements and scrolled on.

[Cpoll]

I was about to be charitable and say 'maybe those are LinkedIn pictures,' but all it takes is a Google image search to verify that, indeed, they're stock photos.