Would you hire him to help your workforce to improve their productivity? You see, he's a consultant, and presumably he wants work doing that, but his photo looks like something out of film noir, where he's one of the bad guys, a sicko, like Jack The Ripper.
Why would a guy who is looking for work in a corporate setting go to some pains, I'm presuming, to shoot and then to post a photo at the end of his articles that screams: "Be afraid; be very, very afraid?" Or, check out the picture of a certain business coach.
She writes some good pieces, and I enjoy them, but her picture makes her look too young and, for lack of a better word, way too average to qualify as someone's Solon.
I think we all have a fundamental weakness, a flaw, perhaps even a tragic one that we should compensate for.
We don't see ourselves as others see us, and you can triple that when it comes to perceiving the quality of the photographs we take and choose to display.
When I look at the pictures of my fellow authors, I feel I'm peering into their souls and I don't like what I see.
Some of the most prolific writers choose impish shots for some reason.
Their grins look like they've had their fingers in too many cookie jars.
Some readers would see these images and probably think they're "cute" and endearing, but is that perception going to get the authors what they really want? I write to get business, using articles as a marketing tool.
Occasionally, I post something for fun, but usually, I have commercial purposes that I'm pursuing.
Why compete with my own messages by posting a picture that just might impeach my credibility? If you don't like my ideas, fine.
But why should I distract you with my looks? Before posting an image, try running it by a client or two; people who like you, respect you, and are paying you for your output.
If they hesitate to approve, select another shot, or perhaps better still, don't use a photo.
Just let your ideas speak for themselves.