your face on the site? evidence, decision, checklist

web · 2026-10-13 · 5 min

it depends — but the evidence leans yes where personal trust decides. stanford (4,500+ people): real organization, real people, expertise shown. NN/g: users attend to relevant real-people photos, ignore stock models; personal-site visitors want the person behind it. headshots don't convert — authenticity does. the decision guide plus alternatives.

show it when

solo professional (consultants, trades, creatives — YOU are the product). local services (strangers invite you home — a face de-risks). trust-central sales (health, money, legal, childcare-adjacent — stakes demand humanity). about + contact pages minimum (the highest-intent journey ends at a human). current, well-lit, doing-the-work beats studio stiff — genuine + relevant + professional-enough.

skip/replace when

safety/privacy needs (stalking-prone trades, personal risk — real team/work photos instead). large-team brand (company face > founder face — team grid with names/roles). early-stage ugliness (bad photo worse than none — get the shoot done, don't publish dreadful). alternatives that carry trust: work photos, team images, customer proof, transparent details (address, registration, credentials). a face amplifies trust signals; it never substitutes for them (trust inventory).

the photo checklist

real (you, now — five-year-old photos are future complaints). relevant (on-site, at work, with tools — context sells). lit and sharp (daylight + phone + steady beats dim DSLR). consented (team/customers: written permission — GDPR applies to faces too: GDPR simply). consistent (same treatment site-wide + profiles — recognition compounds). about page housing it: about pages people read.

FAQ

video instead?

sixty optional-play seconds beat six paragraphs — captioned, no autoplay. face + voice + work in one asset.

we-not-I with a face?

solo showing face while writing we: the collapse at first contact costs more than any singular honesty. face + I align; teams show teams.