CGI or Photography? A Practical Guide for FMCG Growth Teams
If you manage visual content for an FMCG brand you already know the pressure - tight launch windows, growing SKU counts, and multiple retail channels all asking for fresh creative. The big question: do you book another photoshoot or switch to CGI?
This isn’t a “CGI wins” sales pitch. It’s a decision framework built for growth and marketing directors who need results. We’ll look at timelines, budget curves, variant management, and brand storytelling so you can decide where CGI adds value and where a traditional camera still earns its keep.
1. Timeline Pressure and Seasonality
FMCG calendars rarely stand still. A single packaging tweak can shift a product‑launch date by weeks. CGI has an edge when prototypes arrive late or when label changes happen post‑print, digitally swapping a dieline is faster than re‑shooting.
Photography remains strong for pre‑planned hero campaigns (think a Christmas billboard briefed six months ahead). You’ll get authentic lighting on real glass condensation or liquid pour shots - details that still resonate in large‑format print.
2. Budget Over the Product Life‑Cycle
A single CGI project can feel expensive up‑front, but the cost per asset drops sharply after the base model exists. For brands running frequent flavour refreshes, that scalability often outweighs repeat studio fees.
Conversely, if you only need one or two static packshots for the year, a concise studio session may be more economical. Use a quick decision rule:
High SKU Velocity → CGI Pays Back Faster
Low SKU Velocity → Photography May Suffice
3. Variant Consistency in Multi‑Retailer Worlds
Different retailers specify different image ratios, backgrounds and DPI requirements. CGI makes producing those derivatives a press‑of‑a‑button exercise. Photography needs physical reshoots or heavy retouching to keep alignment.
But human context still matters. If your brand story relies on lifestyle imagery - family gatherings, café culture… photography’s authentic light and people will outperform.
4. Creative Control vs Authentic Imperfection
CGI offers pixel‑perfect repeatability. Lighting never drifts. Logos never warp. That’s gold for Amazon galleries or PDP grids where micro‑consistency boosts conversion.
Yet perfection can feel sterile. A slight bottle condensation or imperfect fruit placement can signal “real” to consumers subconsciously. For hero campaigns aimed at emotional connection, blending a rendered pack into a photographed lifestyle scene is often the sweet spot, although this too can be recreated with CGI.
Decision Matrix for FMCG Directors
No single solution rules. Many leading FMCG brands run dual pipelines: CGI for packshots, photography for lifestyle - with both assets sharing colour references to stay visually cohesive.
Practical Next Steps
- Audit Variant Forecasts – project your SKU roadmap for 12‑24 months to see asset volume.
- Map Channel Requirements – note retailer specs (ratio, DPI, backdrop).
- Define Emotional vs Informational Shots – lifestyle (emotion) vs packshot (information).
- Run a Pilot Render – compare performance on PDP A/B tests.
If pilot renders drive faster conversion and your roadmap shows high variant churn, shifting budget to CGI is a sound growth move.
In Summary
Need people, real environments or tactile imperfections? Book the photographer.
Need speed, consistency, or endless variant control? Spin up the render engine.
Most FMCG leaders now run both in parallel.
Balanced correctly, CGI frees budget and time, allowing photography to focus on the human storytelling it does best.
Have a launch calendar that never sleeps? Let’s discuss how a hybrid CGI approach could streamline your content pipeline.