I have been reading a bunch of threads on here about how different companies do their advertising/marketing. I was surprised to learn how many companies use stock photos (of properties they did not do) for websites, flyers, newspaper ads, business cards, etc. I just always assumed that if a company was going to show a photo in their marketing material, then the photo reflected the work of that company. We only use pictures of properties we've actually worked on in our marketing (which is why the website is still a bit light on photos...kept forgetting to take the digital camera with us last season! Made a resolution to photograph all of our properties that we're allowed to this season). I'm sure we could make our stuff look a whole lot more enticing if we used pictures of other people's work, but we didn't want to mislead our customers. So I'm wondering, does anyone else make it a point to use only photos of work they've done, or do most companies use stock photos? I'm not attacking those who do, I'm just simply curious, since as a customer I always made the assumption that the ad I was looking at reflected the work of the company, and I'm wondering how true that is. Thoughts?