A neighbor has a huge RV emblazoned with the monicker:
FUZION
IMPACT EDITION
I guess FUZION is a somewhat appropriate name for Los Alamos
... even if the town is a lot better known for fission.
And the town isn't particularly noted for spelling excellence,
so that part's okay.
However, would you want a vehicle that's an "IMPACT EDITION"?
Maybe it's just me, but impact is something I generally try to avoid
in vehicles.
Tags: advertising, humor
[
13:44 Jul 03, 2023
More humor |
permalink to this entry |
]
I noticed this oddly self-contradictory message on a box in a shoe store.
It says:
The key to Shape-ups LIV by Sketchers is the diagonally curved bottom.
It helps guide you back to the body's barefoot stride.
DISREGARD ALL FITNESS BENEFIT CLAIMS.
Doesn't the second paragraph contradict and cancel out the first one?
I was curious, so I did a little poking around. But all I found was
accounts of
Sketchers
being pressured to pull an advertisement aimed at
teen girls, in which it makes different claims regarding a different
Shape-up shoe. Supposedly the advertiser was also putting stickers
on shoeboxes saying "Disregard all fitness benefit claims."
But the box I was reading was an adult shoe, unrelated to the teen
advertising cartoons, and the sign isn't a sticker -- it's part of the
printing on the box.
So it's a mystery. To be honest, I was already primed to disregard any
fitness claims I read on the front of a shoebox. But I guess it's glad
that the company uses valuable advertising space to remind everyone to
discount the company's own claims.
Tags: humor, advertising
[
21:09 Jul 11, 2012
More humor |
permalink to this entry |
]
This coupon showed up on a Safeway receipt.
Everyone I've showed it to has the same reaction as I did:
stacks of pancakes! Oh, wait, the headline says ... oh, I see,
I guess those are supposed to be coins.
I'm not sure what the lesson is ... maybe that you should show your ad
to a few other people before publishing it.
Or maybe the program is actually for cafe owners looking to increase
their breakfast sales ...
Tags: humor, imaging, advertising
[
12:26 Nov 08, 2011
More humor |
permalink to this entry |
]
Usually I just delete spam after seeing the subject line.
But I couldn't resist one that arrived this morning:
Subject: You'll be saying WOW every time with ShamWow
Wondering whether the seller was familiar with the
meaning
of the word "sham",
I just had to take a look.
I couldn't tell anything from the text -- it was all just random
verbiage to try to fool Baysian filters.
But the mail also attached two images, img001.png and img002.png.
The first was a big grey starburst thing; the second, at 348Kb, was the
actual ad
(click on it to get the full-sized version; the thumbnail
here doesn't do it justice).
There are just so many things to love about this ad, starting
with the name "ShamWow" itself.
I love the mixture of fonts and bright colors, with the slightly
lopsided hourglass shape of the ShamWow! logo.
I love the "AS SEEN ON TV" bug -- a charming image that hasn't
changed a whit since the 60's, maybe even the 50's.
I love the unidentifiable grey and yellow flat things with
unreadable text on them -- they look like file folders and folded
papers, but they're probably two different colors and sizes of
ShamWow -- covered with a square announcing
"10 Year [unreadable]", which made me wonder if they were selling
auto loans or securities. But if you magnify it you find that the
third word is probably "Warranty".
I love the presumption that you'll think that 20x the weight of
a small cloth object is a lot of water (is it? I have no idea, let
me grab a paper towel and a gram scale). I love the blurry red
and white "CLICK FOR DETAILS" button.
But what I like best about this image is that it's a PNG but it's
full of JPG artifacts. Now, I'm not very picky about jpeg artifacts.
(You'd think I would be, as a de-facto GIMP expert, but I'm really not.)
I shoot DSLR photos in jpeg rather than raw mode because most of the
time the difference just isn't enough for me to care about.
I use jpeg for most of the icons on my web site if they don't
need transparency, and I lower the jpeg quality level to make
them load faster. I'm not a PNG snob (actually, I'm more likely
to use GIF than PNG for web icons). But really -- this ad image
is a wonderful example of jpeg artifacts and why you can't
just turn the quality down arbitrarily far.
I could even understand using extreme jpeg compression because they were
sending out a hundred quotillion spam messages and wanted to reduce bandwidth.
But they're not sending a jpeg -- they've converted the low-quality JPG
back to a 348Kb PNG before sending the spam.
All I can figure is that someone designed the ad and saved it as
JPG, making it really small. And then someone in the business saw
lbrandy's
great cartoon on JPG vs. PNG -- and said "Oh, no! We'd better
use PNG instead! And loaded up the JPG and saved it as a PNG with
default settings.
(For further reading on PNG vs. JPEG and image file
size optimization, you can get an overview of formats at my
Image
Formats for the Web and some detailed tutorials at the
Bandwidth
Conservation Society; or chapters 2 and 8 in
my GIMP book, soon to be out in
its second edition.)
Tags: humor, advertising, gimp
[
11:54 Nov 14, 2008
More humor |
permalink to this entry |
]