BTW ... about your cheezy ad!

karlc wrote on 9/20/1999, 12:30 PM
This has been bothering me for a couple of months now and
since you guys conveniently provide a blank slate for
rants, here goes:

IMO, you really need to reconsider your advertising
firm ... and ditch the sleazy looking, latin lover, garish
colored, advertisement for Vegas Pro you are currently
running in some of the national mags.

It violates almost every principle of acceptable graphic
design, with numerous unrelated font familes placed on top
of garish backgrounds making it very difficult to
read.

Hell, I even knew what page it was on in one of the mags
and passed the ad over three times while looking for it ...
thinking it had to be something else. I almost expected
some little peroxided lounge lizard, or worse yet, Wayne
Newton, to spill off *those* pages ... not information that
would make me consider purchasing Vegas Pro.

Tastefully done, techically oriented screen shots in
subdued color will represent the product one hell of a lot
better, IMO. Too conservative? Just keep in mind that even
the most outlandish music folk can be very CONSERVATIVE
when it comes to spending their hard earned money.

Let me put it this way ... there is no way in hell that ad
would convince me to buy Vegas Pro!

AAMOF, I would be willing to bet that you would be
surprised at the number of folks who read the magazine and
did not even realize there was a Vegas Pro ad in it!

I am aware of the name of the product and the symbolism
attempted in the ad .. but sheesh! do you have to carry it
that far?

:)

FWIW ...

KAC
www.hsound.com

Comments

tolerpro wrote on 9/21/1999, 2:42 PM
I have to agree... Had I not already tried the Vegas beta, I would
be afraid to try the product represented by that ad - if I were lucky
enough to figure out that it was an ad for a multitrack DAW.

Brian

---

Karl Caillouet wrote:
>>This has been bothering me for a couple of months now and
>>since you guys conveniently provide a blank slate for
>>rants, here goes:
>>
>>IMO, you really need to reconsider your advertising
>>firm ... and ditch the sleazy looking, latin lover, garish
>>colored, advertisement for Vegas Pro you are currently
>>running in some of the national mags.
>>
>>It violates almost every principle of acceptable graphic
>>design, with numerous unrelated font familes placed on top
>>of garish backgrounds making it very difficult to
>>read.
>>
>>Hell, I even knew what page it was on in one of the mags
>>and passed the ad over three times while looking for it ...
>>thinking it had to be something else. I almost expected
>>some little peroxided lounge lizard, or worse yet, Wayne
>>Newton, to spill off *those* pages ... not information that
>>would make me consider purchasing Vegas Pro.
>>
>>Tastefully done, techically oriented screen shots in
>>subdued color will represent the product one hell of a lot
>>better, IMO. Too conservative? Just keep in mind that even
>>the most outlandish music folk can be very CONSERVATIVE
>>when it comes to spending their hard earned money.
>>
>>Let me put it this way ... there is no way in hell that ad
>>would convince me to buy Vegas Pro!
>>
>>AAMOF, I would be willing to bet that you would be
>>surprised at the number of folks who read the magazine and
>>did not even realize there was a Vegas Pro ad in it!
>>
>>I am aware of the name of the product and the symbolism
>>attempted in the ad .. but sheesh! do you have to carry it
>>that far?
>>
>>:)
>>
>>FWIW ...
>>
>>KAC
>>www.hsound.com
pops wrote on 9/21/1999, 4:03 PM

hey smart guy:
your message refutes your point.
-pops

Karl Caillouet wrote:
>>This has been bothering me for a couple of months now and
>>since you guys conveniently provide a blank slate for
>>rants, here goes:
>>
>>IMO, you really need to reconsider your advertising
>>firm ... and ditch the sleazy looking, latin lover, garish
>>colored, advertisement for Vegas Pro you are currently
>>running in some of the national mags.
>>
>>It violates almost every principle of acceptable graphic
>>design, with numerous unrelated font familes placed on top
>>of garish backgrounds making it very difficult to
>>read.
>>
>>Hell, I even knew what page it was on in one of the mags
>>and passed the ad over three times while looking for it ...
>>thinking it had to be something else. I almost expected
>>some little peroxided lounge lizard, or worse yet, Wayne
>>Newton, to spill off *those* pages ... not information that
>>would make me consider purchasing Vegas Pro.
>>
>>Tastefully done, techically oriented screen shots in
>>subdued color will represent the product one hell of a lot
>>better, IMO. Too conservative? Just keep in mind that even
>>the most outlandish music folk can be very CONSERVATIVE
>>when it comes to spending their hard earned money.
>>
>>Let me put it this way ... there is no way in hell that ad
>>would convince me to buy Vegas Pro!
>>
>>AAMOF, I would be willing to bet that you would be
>>surprised at the number of folks who read the magazine and
>>did not even realize there was a Vegas Pro ad in it!
>>
>>I am aware of the name of the product and the symbolism
>>attempted in the ad .. but sheesh! do you have to carry it
>>that far?
>>
>>:)
>>
>>FWIW ...
>>
>>KAC
>>www.hsound.com
wgallant wrote on 9/21/1999, 5:40 PM
Same here! Heard there was a Vegas ad, didn't see it on a quick flip
through, went to the back of the magazine to find what page it was
on, and still almost missed it!

You coulda fooled me about the content, even after I started reading.

"Cheezy" ain't the word for it!

Willg


Brian Woodard wrote:
>>I have to agree... Had I not already tried the Vegas beta, I would
>>be afraid to try the product represented by that ad - if I were
lucky
>>enough to figure out that it was an ad for a multitrack DAW.
>>
>>Brian
>>
>>---
>>
>>Karl Caillouet wrote:
>>>>This has been bothering me for a couple of months now and
>>>>since you guys conveniently provide a blank slate for
>>>>rants, here goes:
>>>>
>>>>IMO, you really need to reconsider your advertising
>>>>firm ... and ditch the sleazy looking, latin lover, garish
>>>>colored, advertisement for Vegas Pro you are currently
>>>>running in some of the national mags.
karlc wrote on 9/22/1999, 7:34 AM
hey wise guy:
poops old buddy, you obviously ain't seen the ad. :)

Pops Pops wrote:
>>
>>hey smart guy:
>>your message refutes your point.
>>-pops
pops wrote on 9/22/1999, 10:59 AM

karl:
i did see the ad
it just seems that if the ad incited you to posting a tirade
in this forum
than the ad is effective in getting your attention.
-pops


Karl Caillouet wrote:
>>hey wise guy:
>>poops old buddy, you obviously ain't seen the ad. :)
>>
karlc wrote on 9/22/1999, 4:41 PM
pops:
that was the point of the "tirade" ... the ad was so ineffective in
getting my attention that i passed by it repeatedly trying to find
it, even knowing what page(s)it was on!

doesn't appear to be all that uncommon, either.

hey!! ... i could get used to this no "caps" schtick! :)

KAC ... (well, almost)

Pops Pops wrote:
>>
>>karl:
>>i did see the ad
>>it just seems that if the ad incited you to posting a tirade
>>in this forum
>>than the ad is effective in getting your attention.
>>-pops
>>
>>
>>Karl Caillouet wrote:
>>>>hey wise guy:
>>>>poops old buddy, you obviously ain't seen the ad. :)
>>>>
>>