This being an article by KISSmetrics, I was disappointed there were no actual numbers or research done for the article. Unless I missed something, not a single statement was backed up with actual data. The only study mentioned in the entire article was in the context of ad copy and was done over 30 years ago (I'm assuming they're referring to a study from Ogilvy on Advertising [1] but I could be wrong).
For example:
If the images you’re using are not clearly tied to your value proposition, or to the central theme of your page, then they will only confuse your readers. At best, they’ll be pointless distractions. At worst, they’ll give the wrong impression and lead readers to feel tricked or disappointed.
In my experience, the blog posts I've written gain much more traction when they have images, even pointless stock images (I have experimented with this). So while I agree, that ideally, images should provide actual value to the story, I've found that a couple pointless stock images are better than no images. This is why I would have really liked to see actual evidence to back up their claims.
EDIT: Also, while we're on the topic, I also hate including all those social sharing widgets, but viewership takes a dramatic hit when they're not there.
Blogs and landing pages should be treated separately. For a blog, a pointless stock image still serves the purpose of visually breaking up the article so it doesn't look like a big wall of text.
I agree with you though that I would have liked to see some numbers, but otherwise it was a good article that should at least give you some ideas on what to test next.
I completely agree, which is why I was also confused that the referenced study was on offline ad design and copy, their first screenshot was a landing page, their second screenshot was an online news article, and their third screenshot was a blog post.
For example:
If the images you’re using are not clearly tied to your value proposition, or to the central theme of your page, then they will only confuse your readers. At best, they’ll be pointless distractions. At worst, they’ll give the wrong impression and lead readers to feel tricked or disappointed.
In my experience, the blog posts I've written gain much more traction when they have images, even pointless stock images (I have experimented with this). So while I agree, that ideally, images should provide actual value to the story, I've found that a couple pointless stock images are better than no images. This is why I would have really liked to see actual evidence to back up their claims.
EDIT: Also, while we're on the topic, I also hate including all those social sharing widgets, but viewership takes a dramatic hit when they're not there.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Ogilvy-Advertising-David/dp/039472903X