advertisement

All posts tagged advertisement

Having been in the graphic business for over two decades, I look at things differently than your average guy would, I guess.
And I’ve seen quite a few weird and bad Photoshop jobs pass my desk.
Sometimes you wonder “but… but… HOW??? WHAT were they thinking??” Also sometimes you look at something and you simply KNOW there’s something odd, but you can’t really put your finger on it, because it’s not all THAT clear from the start.

Yesterday I was flying from Denpasar to Manila, a 4 hour flight. Cebu Pacific (excellent company, I’ve flown with them many many times!) has their own in-flight magazine, as many carriers do, and of course there’s plenty of advertising in it. I finished my book, so I had plenty of time to scrupulously go through the whole magazine. And really, when you look at things closely, there’s a surprising amount of really shitty Photoshop work out there.

There was one with a swimming pool, where people and chairs were copy-pasted in, with reflections and shadows in every which (wrong) way, dwarfs and giants living harmoniously together, there were really REALLY bad masking jobs, and so on.
I picked out one of many for you that caught my eye specifically.

This one, supposedly a very upscale real estate company, hired one of Philippines’ most famous models to pose in their imagery. Look how she’s holding on tight with one hand on the railing of the speed boat and with the other hand on the glass of wine.
Oh, but hang on…

Real estate advertisement

Real estate advertisement, copyright belongs to the respective owners.
Snapshot of the advertisement page in Cebu Pacific Air’s in-flight magazine.

Details of the real estate advertisement

Details of the real estate advertisement

So basically every element in this adverts is copy-pasted to make this composite of images. And it’s done badly.

I kept on snickering when I paged through the magazine. The people sitting next to me probably thought I was pretty weird 😀

I’ve started a business with the Better Half.
And for that I made a few ads that I wanted to boost on Facebook to get a larger reach. You’d think that’s a straight-forward piece of design, right?
WRONG!
Facebook has a few rules to live by when you want to boost posts on their website. That’s fine, of course. And if it was all logical, it would be even finer (is that even proper English? 😉 ).
But it’s not as fine as it sounds.
The rule over which I kept on tripping was the 20% text rule. In order to be allowed to boost an ad on Facebook, the ad is not allowed to have more than 20% text. And that’s where everything goes south.
I don’t know if there are actually PEOPLE checking the posts submitted, or if that’s a totally automated “optical character recognition” kind of thing, but there are two major flaws in the system where Facebook fucks up royally (excuse me my french).
1) They don’t understand logo fonts. So everything that has a logo in it consisting of text, is seemingly considered as… text.
2) They work with a grid system. A 5 x 5-box grid. Regardless of the size of the ad, everything is divided in a 5 x 5-box grid and you’re supposed to click the boxes in the grid that contain text. If you have more than 5 boxes clicked, you have more than 20% text and your ad is rejected for boosting.
The problem with this is, if I have only ONE letter in one box, that WHOLE box is considered to have text. If that letter happens to be exactly on the division of the grid, it will be in two boxes, and thus TWO boxes are considered to have text.

Facebook Ad Example 1

An ad that would -supposedly- fail according to Facebook’s 20% text rule

Left a 125 x 125 mm square made in InDesign with the letters on the grid division. Right the grid from Facebook where you have to indicate what boxes contain text. When done properly, it indicates that this ad has 40% text. Of course that’s not true, and if there are ACTUAL people checking this, you will get away with it, because it has maybe 5% text. But a computer is stupid. If this is done automatically by OCR, then you’re screwed.

Another problem with this system is, that they use this grid, the 5 x 5-box grid, on EVERY ad. Regardless of its size. So I put out another test.
In InDesign I made a document of 150 x 2500 mm, so a super long, narrow document. I put a bit of text in the top and in the bottom. See what happens:

Facebook Ad Example 1

Another ad that would -supposedly- fail according to Facebook’s 20% text rule

Facebook’s app to check your ad squeeeeeezes that complete document into a smaller space. The text is somewhat stretched, so it’s unproportionally scaled, but according to the boxes checked, that ad still has 40% text. And that’s nowhere near right

The initial add that I posted DID have more than 20% text.

Facebook ad, rejected

Initial ad that was rejected because it had too much text.

So that was right. But then I changed it, took away the majority of the text (two versions in between), until only this was left:

 

Facebook ad, rejected

Ad that was initially accepted, but then rejected after all.

So this one was initially accepted, it ran for about an hour, and then I STILL got a mail that it was rejected, due to the 20%-text rule.

So I really believe that they have no clue about logo fonts. In this last case the ACTUAL text is only in the red stamp and next to it, and those fall exactly in the second row of the grid. They clearly calculated the diver’s log, which is a logo font and the Reconnect Discover logo as text.
But then again, if you look at it closely, and look at the EFFECTIVE amount of text in the image, so the part that is really text and not the boxes that Facebook has indicated as being completely text, then all that is left is maybe… 10-12%? And in the example below I’ve even added the logo font that is Diver’s Log (which isn’t text, but a logo / image):

Actual text in the image

The actual amount of text in the image in blue, the text in the image according to Facebook in red (Diver’s Log not included in this).

Right now I’m a bit at a loss. If they really do also consider the Reconnect Discover logo a bit of text, there’s no way this ad would ever get through.
If they would only consider the top part text, I would have to design it like this:

Facebook ad, approved?

I’m a designer. A visual artist. I create nice things.
And that idiotic 5 x 5-box grid of Facebook prevents me from making nice things. No designer in his right mind would make something like this. By default any design would cover exactly the division of grids. It’s a rule of thumb. That also goes in photography. You put things on the division lines, because instinctively that’s where your eye draws to first.
And Facebook is putting a plug in that.
So F**K YOU, Facebook.
Now… Since this is my own website, and I can freely advertise anything I want here, I’ll put the original ad here once more.
Go check out the website, and go get your Diver’s Log. It’ll be one of the best decisions you’ll make in 2014. I promise 🙂

Facebook ad, rejected

 

Edit to add, at 13:39.

Just for the fun of it, I boosted this post on the fromadifferentangle.net Facebook page.
This was at 12:09:

FB ad approved

At 12:09 I boosted the post on the fromadifferentangle.net Facebook page. It was approved.

Then at 13:39 I get a message from Facebook, saying that the ad to boost my post was rejected. It had, by that time, generated just over 600 views and I was charged $ 1,32 for it.

FB ad rejected

At 13:39 I got a message from Facebook saying that the ad for boosting the post was rejected, because there was too much text in it.

So first the boost was approved. I’ve boosted a good number of posts on the fromadifferentangle Facebook page, and they have ALL -without any exception until now- been accepted. Why? Because it’s a LINK. It’s a link to a post, not an image ad.
Now one can start thinking: WHY did they reject this boost? Was it because I was badmouthing Facebook? Or was it because I was basically promoting the ad that they wouldn’t let me promote through Reconnect Discover Facebook page?
It’s a very dubious case.

Do leave your input, if you know the answer.

I don’t know if it’s a typo, or if “they” really think everyone’s a total stupid idiot, but I run into these kind of things actually quite frequently.

Advertisement in Runners World

Advertisement in Runners World, credit to those whom deserve it (not me).

So this is an ad from the Dutch version of Runners World, a magazine aimed at the athletes who spend their time running.
The thing I was laughing about was the black and blue text above the Polar watch:

Abonneer je nu voor slechts € 59,95* een jaar lang op Runner’s World en ontvang een Polar FT2 trainingscomputer t.w.v. € 59,95 cadeau!

That means as much as “Subscribe to Runner’s World for a year now for only € 59,95 and receive a Polar FT2 training computer valued € 59,95 as a gift!

Now that in itself would be totally fine, totally generous. But notice the little asterisk (*) after the blue € 59,95? That always means that elsewhere on the page is a reference to that asterisk with a but, an or, conditions, other prices, etc. etc.
And surely, just under that piece of text is an asterisk with a reference, stating

* In plaats van € 50,00

And that short line means “* Instead of € 50,00”. See why that makes me laugh? You’re getting a great offer for a year subscription, which costs you € 59,95 and the normal price for that same year subscription is € 50,00. So basically you’re paying € 9,95 for that gift they’re offering (of which I doubt they paid a dime themselves, it’s probably sponsored by Polar for a full page advertisement). That’s kind of… sneaky, isn’t it?
Oh, and then there’s still the little bit of information under the watch, saying

Actie geldig zolang de voorraad strekt.

And that means that this offer is valid as long as they have these watches in store. Wouldn’t be surprised if they only got a handful. Polar surely wouldn’t have sponsored them with a box-ful of these watches for that full page advertisement.

 

Years ago I posted a few of these on my other blog.
Check these out:

Fantastic Dell offer

Fantastic Dell offer. New laptop, from 1.099 for 1.189

 

Product advertisement from former supermarket chain De Boer

Product advertisement from former supermarket chain De Boer

I guess the Dell one is clear, even if it’s in Dutch. The ones directly above here are scans from a supermarket brochure. They all follow the principle 2 for 1, meaning buy one, get the second one for free.
So the first one, one liter of juice for 1.32 and you get the second one for free. And in really small font you see that the price per liter is 0.66. Meaning, you really pay for both of them. Same with the oranges. 1.5kg cost 2.49 and you get the the second one for free. And the price per kilo is 0.83. And the wine costs 4.66 per liter, but you pay 6.99 per bottle of 750ml and get the second one for free.

(Sure sure… you can also debate that the price per is calculated AFTER the discount, but it’s still a very clumsy way of promoting your products, isn’t it?)

The other day I came across a rum ad by Donq. I don’t drink alcohol myself, so I have no clue what kind of rum it is, how it tastes or what Donq is, but I do know that they should have a little chit-chat with their ad agency.

Donq

Donq

Of course… The bottles were put on the beach. They’re not really there, and they’re not really that big either. But that was a fairly ok job, except for the very Web2.0 reflections of the two bottles in the water, that seem to not be interfered by the waves rolling in on the beach.
Funny thing is… this Donq must make really special glass, because there’s no diffraction of the island’s trees or beach line you can see through the transparent bottle in the middle. Nor in the round cap of the bottle on the right.
And I guess that green bottle is coated somehow, so you can’t see anything through there. But those two bottles on the left are normal glass. And even if I don’t know anything about rum, I do know that -although it being a pissy yellow- it’s still transparent and should’ve shown island and sea as well.

Owwell… Maybe the graphic had a bit too much before he worked this ad 😀

I’ve known Dolce&Gabbana to have really stylish ads. And even though many of them are obviously staged, i.e. people from multiple pictures placed into one, usually they are very credible. I haven’t noticed before that they would put clothes on people that wouldn’t previously be there.
The other day, however, I found this ad. It’s one page of a spread, where, again, multiple people are united in one ad, but look at this:

Dolce&Gabbana bandana

Dolce&Gabbana bandana

Is it just me or should this bandana throw some sort of shadow here and there?
I know if I would have a bandana over my eyes like that, it would cast a good shadow, even if there would be a reflector held under my face…