So What?
Alright, I just had to write a post about this ad. I have seen this one featured on at least three other advertising related blogs. I don’t think this is a good ad. First of all it’s using other peoples ideas to sell a product. The idea in general is too easy, and i am not a fan of using illusions in ads. Optical Illusions are often used for tylenol or advil products.
The art direction is very weak, couldn’t they at least used a different font for the tag-line? It just looks very lazy to me. It also seems to me that this idea was a one off that the art director probably thought off when they were going through some illusion book or something. This is my first rant, and it just had to be on this piece. Clerasil would be a fun client to do ads for, but this one isn’t.
I understand that this ad is probably well received by the consumner, but that doesn’t cut it for me creative wise.
Posted in Print, Rants 
Add to del.ici.us 
Digg It
Blogs that link to this post 
Permanent Link
October 20th, 2005 at 5:59 pm
I disagree. Using optical illusions in ads does not have to be bad — I strongly encourage my students to do so. It allows the viewer to get some distance to the ad itself.
I agree about the bottom — could have been better. But it does the job
October 20th, 2005 at 6:16 pm
i agree with fred. this illusion is a gimmick.
i’m all for using colour and contrast to achieve illusions to make certain elements pop, or to create visual tension, or to guide the viewers’ eyes. in those cases, the illusion is organic to the piece. in this ad, it is forced.
and also, i think fred is trying to say that the idea should come first. and in this ad, that isn’t the case.
i agree that this ad almost seems like a cop-out.
October 20th, 2005 at 7:44 pm
I would have liked this ad a lot better if the illusion was “custom” rather than just copying an existing idea. Maybe incorporate some sort of clerasil branding in it. There are several books with illusions that could easily be converted into an ad. But there should be more than just that. I like it as a medium, but you should find a way to imrove or go further with the existing piece.
October 21st, 2005 at 4:26 am
I agree with Fred too.
The ad borrowed a puzzle from the public domain and substituted it for an idea. The reason why it’s not castrated is because it is a visual ad.
If the idea was verbal, we would have shot it right away. Copying is bad. It’s like puns. Whether they exist in verbal form or visual form, it’s still a sin.
October 21st, 2005 at 9:11 am
by coincidence I found this ad today while flipping through a cannes yearbook, it won bronze in 2003.
whicht is not proving anything or the opposite of anything
October 21st, 2005 at 10:30 pm
i agree. this ad has lazy hack written all over it.
it’s fun to rant, by the way. you should do it more often.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
I think the use of the illusion was not a bad idea.
Although it might not say much for the product for the simple fact that no matter how long you look at this your still going to see black spots in other places.