What is Digg?58 Comments
- inactive, on 12/24/2008, -0/+34When I'm reading magazines, I have my Adblock goggles on.
- UrlorJkron, on 12/24/2008, -0/+33I didn't find any of them impressive. Just more run of the mill flashy ads like you already see in magazines.
- Tr33fiddy, on 12/24/2008, -0/+29Pictures of products with ***** drawn over them.
Whoopty do. - kennyROAR, on 12/24/2008, -0/+25buried for links.
- inactive, on 12/24/2008, -0/+14Seems like they used the same "Make a Flashy Ad" template. Creativity = 0.
This is fail.
Buried. - trogdor1231, on 12/24/2008, -0/+13step 1: put product in middle of ad
step 2: add flash colors and swoopy lines
step 3: ???
step 4: profit! - Skurt, on 12/24/2008, -3/+14What the ***** kind of BLOGSPAM is this?!?
No images, just individual links to send you to more blogspam pages.
Buried... - Dronez, on 12/24/2008, -0/+11The article should be called the "40 most over stylized ads ever".
Simple is better. - Totz83, on 12/24/2008, -1/+11Im not gonna click 40 ***** links for that *****
- mamboboy, on 12/24/2008, -0/+7Imagine having a nutsack on your chin
- animaniacsrule, on 12/24/2008, -0/+6Coming from a design school and working on projects with ad students and teachers, my initial impression is that they are very pretty, but lack concept. Some of the ads just seem to be the product colored by a kaleidoscope with some copy written below that doesn't tie it all together. Check out student work from schools like Art Center, RISD, and Pratt among others and it becomes clear that concept is king. Eye-catching is an important quality in our visual-oriented culture, but doesn't trump concept. At least that's what we're taught.
- fakhro, on 12/24/2008, -0/+6Adblock on firefox blocks the photos. Use safari or god forbid IE...oh wait theres chrome now phew!
- SamIAre, on 12/24/2008, -0/+6Why are these impressive?
Commenters before me have already said it but it's just trendy, flashy frills and rainbow colors. This is just more proof that Photoshop skill != design skill. Nowhere is it more apparent how misguided these are than the iPhone ad. It's a product that—while flashy and visually impressive—was built on the premise of simple and elegant design. What does random hearts, circles, etc. have to do with that??
As a design student this kind of stuff makes me sick. - ashura001, on 12/25/2008, -0/+5Like SamlAre said, advertising isn't just about a pretty presentation. There needs to be some kind of concept behind it. There's nothing wrong with being influenced by other artists or even borrowing techniques. After all, in this day and age it's hard to not create something that looks like something else. The thing is, if you look at the best examples of advertising they convey a message to the viewer that entices them to buy the product in question. The ads that don't, even if they are pretty to look at, fall flat in the end because there's no substance.
I'm not trying to say that your work is terrible by any means. All of the artists presented are at least decent with Photoshop and/or Illustrator. They just lack concept. - BCBomb47, on 12/24/2008, -0/+5Oh AdBlock, you work too well. Blocking PICTURES of ads.
Had to disable you just to view the page. I'm sorry :( - thecruncheress, on 12/24/2008, -0/+5Looks like dA stuff to me -- good *****, but almost all the same effects.
- Lond, on 12/25/2008, -0/+5Turn off your adblock. Got me as well. ;P
- ashura001, on 12/24/2008, -0/+5You really only have to look at one of them. They all look the same, only with different products in the middle of the over Photoshopped mess.
- limpits, on 12/24/2008, -0/+5ads != backgrounds
- SamIAre, on 12/24/2008, -0/+5For me the problem is the labeling of these as "ads." They all look nice but that's not what advertising is about. Advertising is supposed to convey a message, even if the message is as simple as "buy this crap." Adding pretty stuff behind a pretty product only tells me that the artist knows how to use Photoshop.
- partysan, on 12/25/2008, -0/+5It looks like they were all done by the same person. Damn flowers and meteor effects everywhere.
- MpVpRb, on 12/24/2008, -0/+4I don't know...
I just don't get excited by ads.
Especially when I have to click through several pages to see them.
Must have been submitted by a wannabe ad-monger - bakagaigin, on 12/24/2008, -0/+4I refuse.
- insty, on 12/24/2008, -0/+4Yea, pretty sure that it was all the same "over-designer".
Self promotion isn't as cool as this dork thought. - fakhro, on 12/24/2008, -0/+4i see these ads in porn magazines all the time!
- zenerdiode, on 12/24/2008, -0/+4ugh...how are those impressive. and more than half seem to be from the same guy with the same repetitive pattern thrown on different products.
- ashura001, on 12/24/2008, -0/+4As a designer, I can say that they're pretty to look at but where the substance? They all have the same flourishes and light trails. That's fine and all but when it's overdone like that then it ceases to stand out from the crowd. There's no clear message behind any of the ads other than just "look at this nice looking picture!" In some cases the effects are actually so overdone that they take the focus off of the product that the ad is supposed to be promoting. That's when you know that your ad is a failure.
- swankboy, on 12/25/2008, -0/+4This "trend" is well old and lame. This is not design, this is tarting up an object with a bunch of ***** behind it. Doesn't make me want to buy it or have the object, not remotely compelling. Stupid.
- HeDiggMe, on 12/24/2008, -1/+5Thank you Archie Bunker
- x6655321, on 12/24/2008, -0/+4They're all too busy.
- milkmit, on 12/25/2008, -0/+4I'm glad someone said it.
I took a few classes in ad/poster design when I was at SVA (thankfully I don't do anything remotely ad-related now that I've been out), and the very first thing you learn (often the hard way) is that concept comes first. I don't think any of these delivered on that core concept, and honestly, they all looked way too trendy and just plain boring. - mlvassallo, on 12/25/2008, -0/+4Lens Flair all over the damn place.
- andytronic, on 03/25/2009, -0/+4I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought these were samey, superficial, and ultimately pointless. That, and they'll look laughably dated in a few years.
- OrderlyRoom, on 12/25/2008, -0/+4Business diminishes art. These 'impressive' product ads are not art, they're trite.
- inactive, on 12/24/2008, -1/+5All made by the same people.
Cool plug, bro. - ezinenachalonet, on 12/25/2008, -0/+3Few very good ads there. But most of them really seems overestimated and with to much colors.
- marshallpeck, on 12/25/2008, -0/+3pretty
- onux16, on 12/24/2008, -1/+4Honestly, the Tiger Beer ad is my favorite. It's bright, beautiful, and the colors of the ad actually suit the product... unlike the first PS3 which uses a color template that does the product no justice whatsoever. It comes off as the foundation for the "template" claims you can read in the discussions above me.
(the second PS3 ad proves the person who made it isn't a complete retard in designing ads)
And if you are going to digg this down, have some balls and write your reasons; otherwise, you know I'm right and you're just butt hurt. - Totz83, on 12/24/2008, -0/+3That's interesting, disabling AdBlock fixes it. The URLs for the images contain the word "advertisement", maybe it has something to do with that
- limpits, on 12/24/2008, -0/+3works fine on my firefox
- Chaserloser, on 12/24/2008, -0/+3its already happen to peter on family guy.
- SymboliiC, on 12/24/2008, -0/+3Some of them were really well done, but I don't get why there's links to the pictures, I guess I'm just lazy.
- bryceman111, on 12/25/2008, -0/+2I see what you mean, but I think it is a little overboard to generalize like that. Not all stuff from a website with thousands of users is using the same "effects".
- Falor42, on 12/25/2008, -0/+2I'm not sure how they justify Tiger beer as "Energy" on the photo craption.... not that it makes it any less awesome of a beer!
- dortdruben, on 12/29/2008, -0/+2Nokia v.2 is "Conectting People"? Proof read before adding your stupid flowery nature crap, maybe? Last time I checked, proper spelling connects people better than misspellings do.
- darkstorm777, on 12/25/2008, -1/+3HALF (ok sorry 19) of those designs use the EXACT same ugly, played out, simplistic purple/blue ***** effect that has about 50,000,000 tutorials on how to accomplish. Its crap design, crap creativity.
Submitting a story to digg, on your own designs calling the blog article "40 Impressive Product Ads You Don’t See in Magazines" when 20 of them use the same ***** effect is just plain stupid and shows no creativity whatsoever
This guy is a complete retard in designing ads, burried.
Oh yes, I like bewbs. - OrderlyRoom, on 12/25/2008, -0/+2Collect underpants!
- csarak, on 12/29/2008, -0/+2Imagine having a nutsack on your phone!
- benthose, on 12/29/2008, -0/+2If you've seen one, you've seem 'em all.
Buried - OrderlyRoom, on 12/25/2008, -0/+2Art for the sake of advertising a product reduces the form to nilch. 'Artful' advertising is the shallowest form of 'art' ever conceived. It's purpose is profitability, and that is disgusting.
-
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is