I didn't mean "blast out batches of retarded low-quality shit just to get a click-through", and I don't think JGDesign meant "if your images are misleading, nobody will purchase."
On the one hand, an image of the retirement community itself, or a logo, or a picture of the 17-page admission form might all be "strongly-related" and everyone that clicks on it (not many!) will know exactly what they're getting.
On the other hand, I think Groupon and other deals sites have done a phenomenal job in the "loosely-related" corner -- everything from hilarious pictures of clowns and dinosaurs and shit, to pictures of lush villas and sandy beaches that aren't actually the location that's discounted today (though they may be deals Groupon has offered in the past, IDK). People click on that because it's attractive to the eye, however misleading. I wouldn't use tits to promote your retirement community, that's too far, but within reason, using an image that's more attractive than it is "relevant" can be a strong tactic.
Your job becomes to find a balance. To pull an example out of my ass, if I was selling dog food, I wouldn't use a picture of any real live dog, I'd use fucking Winnie the Pooh eating honey and the tagline "Sweet Treats for your Pooch". Is he a fucking bear? Duh. But he's a big yellow famous bear that people will see on the page.
But, of course, as always, ignore your intuition, split test everything.