feedback on magazine add

[Eric DeWitt]

Hey guys, i am looking for some feedback for a print add that will be running in our area Parade of Homes (basically a big tour of newly built homes).  It is to advertise and get the word out on my firm (Lucid) while also promoting an architectural style that is not as well know in our area.  I don’t want to say to much so i won’t taint your first impressions – which is what i am looking for.  What image is the most successful (a dynamic one, with less info – or bit more traditional, with more info)

[Zach Matthews]

Eric –

I like #1 and #3.

[john michael white]

Hey Eric,

Here are my suggestions (IMHO) and thoughts based on my initial reaction to seeing each ad, coming from someone who has been in the homebuilding industry for the last 15 years:

I would say I like #1 the best.  I like that picture the best (really nice work), and I like the pure and simple approach of its wording.  I also like the silouhette of the person standing on the porch – it gives the home a personal feel – like that guy could be me and that home could be mine! It would make me want to get more info and go to the tour.

#2, I don’t like the bold yellow “Don’t”.  To me, it kind of leaves a negative subliminal message.  I also think the “keeping up with the Jone’s” is kind of cliche and in this modern world of information overload, kind of causes me to skip past it without taking in the intended message.

#3 the image doesn’t appeal to me as much.  I like the richer tones and colors of the first image, as well as the more zoomed in view.  I would maybe rephrase the “Modern Done Different”.  Maybe “Modern. Different.”  This image does give more of a feel for the entire home and with more of the trees in the background, it may give it more of a “Michigan” feel that you want to portray, but it also doesn’t differentiate it for me from what I am used to seeing when I see fancy homes in realestate brochures.

[Zach Matthews]

Also, I would invert the Zahn Builders logo so that the white square dissolves into the background – it’s distracting and looks like whoever did the artwork was bound to use a graphic supplied to them by a non-designer.

Zach

[John Bennett]

#3 by a long shot for me. Agree with Zach, clean up the foliage along the top border and deepen the blue a bit.

my only nit is that the foreground is black, would love to have seen that lightened a bit vis a vie some flash or Grad ND. Minor nit though and unimportant for what your looking for

[Corey Kruitbosch]

#1 feels the best to me .. the silhouette and the angle draw me in and make me want to see the home. I’d echo the highlighted “don’t” on #2 has a negative connotation to me

[Anonymous]

Eric…I think #3 looks way to much like every other ad in today’s building and architecture magazines.

[Eric DeWitt]

Thanks for the great and fast feedback.  The web is a beautiful thing.  The consensus among a couple of my architect buddies has been #2, with the text location (right justified) of #1.  

I agree that #3 would be the traditional approach, and is a bit expected.  The angles and having the person in the first shot seems to really make it unique compared to what you would typically see in a publication like this.  

The logo has already been fixed!  but thanks for pointing that out zach!

The other big yank on this thing is the use of the word “modern”.  People in our are historically really shy away from modern styling in architecture, preferring the known and comfortable.  Typically Shinge or Cottage style architecure:  Cedar shakes, field stone, lots of trim, etc.  The Pottery Barn kind of thing.  All of the response to this project has been “wow, we never knew modern could be like this, i love it”, so i need to be careful to not turn off/scare away the fence sitters before they even get in the door.

Instead of “modern done different” maybe its “architecture done different” or something like that.

And i do see the idea of “don’t” being negative.  I’ll have to think about that.

Here’s where its at now:

P.S.  I love shooting in the last 10 minutes of light, when its almost dark, its just to bad you have to lug a tripod around to do it.  All the colors in the shot are as is, direct our of camera.  But they do need to be converted to CMYK, where most of the blue, and part of the orange are out of Gamut, their intensity drops by quite a bit when converted.  Try it in photoshop and you’ll see.  Anyone have any advice/experience with that?  

[Mike McKeown]

I would like to look at it slightly differently.

I have just seen the same add in 4 different magazines, the exact same add… although it was a good add, the different positioning and layout of the add changed depending on where it was and on which page it was placed, and what content surrounded it.

IMHO.
3. is a back cover add, great impact and nothing to clutter it.
1. is a right hand page
thus 2. a left hand page

However, I know nothing… But I think the photos are great, but agree with the clean up of the trees and the fading of the logo.

They all catch the eye, if I was in the market, then I would respond well to all of them.

Lastly… if I was to change just one, it would be #3, I would move the house up, zoom it out slightly, leaving more dark below it and move all the copy to the bottom.

[Zach Matthews]

Eric –

Just a little English nerd comment then.  The plural of Jones is Joneses.  The possessive form of Jones is Jones’.  While you might not want a house like the Jones’ [house], in daily life we’re all still trying to keep up with the Joneses.  Your ad copy should be, “When you don’t want to be like the Joneses.” Does that make sense?

Here’s an even more pedantic (if that is possible) explanation:

http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/90/5/708

Also, I would agree with the others above that highlighting “don’t” in an ad is never the best subliminal message, and would suggest that you instead highlight “you,” which has a whole set of positive, eye-grabbing connotations.

Best,
Zach

[David Anderson]

I like #3 the best, and think the foliage looks good.

The house looks better without the crop (IMHO) and because there’s nobody in the shot, people will apply their own scale to it.

Great looking house BTW..

www.dsaphoto.com

A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.

[Eric DeWitt]

Makes perfect sense zach!  Thats why i’m an architect and not a famous fly fishing writer i guess!   ;D

Thanks again.

David, i bet it would fit in alot more in Australia than it does here.

[Author]

Posts