|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next] | ||||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5930 Posts |
I see you choose to avoid the specifics you wanted bring up. That disappoints me.
Yes, Brad I'm being Megalomaniacal. Everyone follow my decree. Or follow The Lord Henderson for he has decreed that he knows when an ad is being deceitful and you must follow his law. C'mon, grow up. These are opinions we are stating. |
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
No, you said that video demos should factor zero for everyone. That goes a bit beyond stating mere opinion into prescribing totalitarianism.
Specifics will come - had a busy weekend. But am keeping up with the thread and thought your post pretty much summed up your stance. Just wanted to confirm with you though. So, is that a fair reading: because it doesn't matter to you, it shouldn't matter to anyone - so let them do whatever they want. is that a fair interpretation? Sincerely asking, Brad |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5930 Posts |
No, your interpretation is obviously emotionally biased based on your choice of inflamatory words and name calling. Stating that something should be so for everyone is still just an opinion. You stated how you thought people should view video demos and I stated otherwise. Nothing more.
|
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
No emotion, Tom. I am just trying to explore your viewpoint which you clearly statedin the quote above. If I am reading it incorrectly, how is it that you meant it?
Do you CARE that some people may rely on video demos, or do you feel they are taking an inferior approach to your more evolved strategy? Do you think that people who DO rely on video demos deserve accurate information, or do you believe they should get what they deserve for not sharing your opinion? Brad (Where did I state how people should view demo videos? I just thought that the information presented should be accurate. You have stated that you do not think it needs to be accurate. Right?) |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts |
As far as I can read Tom's position, it is that if he does not get ripped off or if he does not fall for it, then it is ok. Past that point it is bad.
To heck with everyone else, if Tom does not use it as a guide, it is ok to be as misleading as possible for he has decided not to use it as a guide.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Banester Special user 669 Posts |
Quote:
You are correct. Let them put and say anything in a video. It factors nearly zero into my buying process and it should be so for everyone. Tom I can see some truth in that statement. If you beleive that most video's have been edited than you probably shouldn't trust them. I love video's and at least for myself find it easier to learn from. On a side note. Have you ever seen something that is probably too good to be true? Or maybe even read it? The difference is that if you visually see something and then it is not the same that is misleading. If I read something I might imagine what is happening, but I don't know for sure until I get it. Ya you can manipulate writing too, but visually I think you can do so much more.
The art of a magician is to create wonder.
If we live with a sense of wonder, our lives become filled with joy -Doug Henning- |
|||||||||
Mark Powell Special user UK 504 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-03-21 15:01, truthteller wrote: After following this thread with interest, and having watched the above demo video, I would really like to hear people's opinion on this one. |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5930 Posts |
Yes Brad, people would like to know you views on this link you posted. That might even advance the discussion by giving a solid parameter to work from.
Your very thinly veiled atttacks using emotionally charged words like "stupid", "arrogant", "meglomania", and "totalitarianism" only serve to attempt to rile emotion. Am I to assume that is because your weekend was too busy to consider facts? I know you would like to put words in my mouth, but simply I have already answered your question and clarified my point. What I'm waiting for is some detail about what issue you have with the video you linked. Since you are providing no facts right now lets try this: If you are so willing to accept burgers which don't hold up to the image used to sell them, I guess it is OK to sell a car shown in the "best circumstances". No problem if that nice perfect car in the photo actually has a few dings and scratches, oh, and balding tires. You did get a car afterall. Same make, same elements like tires and color, they just aren't quite the same quality. But hey it drives and it is a car. If you want to call a lie a lie then you probably better start at the beginning, and not rationalize the lies away with, "Well, I knew to accept an inferior car, just like I accept an inferior burger. It still serves its purpose right? I can adopt your slogan, I knew what to expect and when I opened the box. How many times have we all gotten excited over a great magic trick only to have someone else say, "Hey, its just a trick, it ain't real. What did you expect?" When I open my magic boxes I only expect that I should be able to have a spectator relate my performance such that it at least generally coincides with the "Promised" effect. Naturally I strive to reach as far beyond that as I can, but achieving the "promise" is a minimum. I get my promises from sources other than the person who is trying to sell the product. |
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
So, let me get this right:
1) You think that it's ok for people to portray WHATEVER they want in a magic demo. Quote:
On 2008-03-18 02:17, Tom Cutts wrote: Quote:
On 2008-03-21 03:28, Tom Cutts wrote: Quote:
On 2008-03-21 15:38, Tom Cutts wrote: 2) You believe that because other industries may lie in their advertising, it makes it right for magician's to lie in theirs. Quote:
On 2008-03-17 01:30, Tom Cutts wrote: Quote:
On 2008-03-19 03:18, Tom Cutts wrote: 3) You recognize no difference between representing an object in its best light versus actively misrepresenting what the product is or can/cannot do. 4) Because you choose not to rely on visual advertising, no one should. Therefore, the advertiser should be allowed to say/do/show whatever they want? Quote:
On 2008-03-18 02:17, Tom Cutts wrote: Quote:
On 2008-03-21 03:28, Tom Cutts wrote: Quote:
On 2008-03-21 15:38, Tom Cutts wrote: Quote:
On 2008-03-21 15:38, Tom Cutts wrote: It factors nearly zero into my buying process and it should be so for everyone. 5) You never expect to receive what you are specifically promised via advertisement when you buy an item. Quote:
On 2008-03-24 21:47, Tom Cutts wrote: 6) As long as someone else tells you the item is good, then the item is now held to a standard of quality as determined by the expert you have consulted. Quote:
On 2008-03-24 21:47, Tom Cutts wrote: And I presume this is the position you advocate for EVERYONE, and should be the basis on what we choose to support as ethical behavior in our field, yes? That's your position? (Just want to understand exactly who I am dealing with here. Only after I know that, can I really discuss the facts with any meaning. After all, if you REALLY believe the sky is red, then I need to be aware of that.) |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5930 Posts |
Ok, so I didn't really expect you to say anything about the link you provided. It has been a busy weekend, afterall. It doesn't matter how many times you spout your misconceptions, it doesn't make them true.
Frankly, you are starting to sound like an advertisement, or worse a politition. There is an old proverb which states, "Life isn't fair." So as I've said, it isn't a matter of what is OK (or fair) by whose standards. It is a matter of accepting the reality and taking action based on that. I wish you luck in changing the reality. |
|||||||||
Mark Powell Special user UK 504 Posts |
Quote:
On 2008-03-24 21:47, Tom Cutts wrote: And your views, Tom. Is this effect, as seen in the video, 'too good'...? Because we have prior knowledge, can we not see that the produced card may not be the same as the chosen card? And if so, isn't that a misleading advert? Or is it ok because it shows the effect? Just wondering. |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5930 Posts |
Quote: That covers the entire video not just parts.
On 2008-03-21 15:38, Tom Cutts wrote: |
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
Tom,
When it comes to discussions/arguments, they almost invariably come down to one point - one nexus - which is the fundamental point of disagreement from which all other disagreements stem. This is usually some worldview/outlook which is completely at odds with someone else's. In order to be able to understand the best way to present my position, I need to understand yours. It is clear you are reluctant to answer anything (the previous exchanges where you refused to answer my question are the perfect example). So, I wanted to review your writing in order to make sure I understood your position clearly. If ANY of them are misconceptions, PLEASE let me know. After all, I have backed them up with your own words - so I feel pretty sure I am on the right page. You will let me know if I am wrong about them, yes? Do I have it right? The video in question uses an entirely different method from the one that is sold with the trick. A reasonably informed magician would be familiar with the method of the original on which it is based, but would notice that something is different from the method he or she knows. (Something that happens often in magic, something we value, something we pay for.) The demonstrator is cheating. While he hints at using the established method when in fact he is not - he is using a method which cannot be used in the real world. When you buy the package, you get the method that you already know - one that has been around for years. His "deceitful" demo'ed method is never described. You, in no form, get that which was shown on the screen. So, Tom, is that an example of an honest business practice? He hints at the method being used without using - which would be an example of presenting it in the best possibly light - but does not really do it. A knowledgeable magician would see moments that would lead him or her to conclude that either that is NOT what he is doing (that he is doing something new and different), or he has some work on it that allows it to look so good (something we in magic value, and pay for). Neither is true and neither is delivered. Honest business practice there Tom? Or, since you don't rely on videos, they can eat cake. Brad |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5930 Posts |
You haven't backed up anything, Brad. All you've done is showcase your misconceptions. Again, I have posted my thoughts on the esoteric side of the topic. I think you should be able to state your position clearly. It is pretty clear you are fine when a burger looks rather little like the one used to sell it in an advertisement... in quality sense I guess. Does that apply to other things as well like cars? If not, why not? Is it experiencial. IS each person free to develope their own experience set or is someone going to dictate from their own experience set what is right or wrong.
Most of us have eaten our share of McD burgers and we know what to expect as you put it. So are we overlooking the sometimes gross exaggeration of their product in their ads? If our experience with cars is much less do we rely more on the accuracy of the ad? As I was alluding to in my first reaction to the video, the person's name and the quality of the video are enough for me to know what to expect. I have not purchased the trick in question so I can't speak as to its method. What I saw was this: The magician signs a card, "loses" it in the deck, and then a magician signed card appears in a tic tac box. Is that what you saw, Brad? |
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
Dear Tom
Please read my post previous where I explain in great detail what I saw. I have extended you the courtesy of reading your posts. I would hope you would reciprocate. May I reasonably expect that from you, or are you just here to play games? (There's one of the dang either/or questions that I know you hate to answer!!!!) So, based on your previous reply, I can conclude you won't answer a direct question. Good to know. Nevertheless, in the hope that maybe you will change your mind - and hopefully allow other to chime in (Where is Danny??? I haven't heard from him in a while. Danny tell me what you think about these...) I will pose three questions. You will deflect them, asking me questions I have already answered. Then we will repeat. Quote:
On 2008-03-25 21:21, Tom Cutts wrote: 1) Are my conclusions about your position - those drawn DIRECTLY from your statements - wrong? If so, how? (Please refer to the statements I quoted and pasted above, thanks.) _____________________________________________ I put out an ad in the local paper to sell a car and include a picture showing it in mint condition. When you bought it you got a junk heap OR maybe there is just a huge dent on the other side of it. But yes, it is still a car. I own an auto company. I make a commercial of a car flying down the crooked roads of Italy with a hot guy and blonde babe in the front, it spins out, and comes to rest at a carefully placed picnic basket perched precariously at the top of the hill. Unless you are a professional driver you will probably never be able to make the car do that, and it is definitely being portrayed in the best light possible - all the extras are included in the commercial. 2) Do you believe those are really the same situations? Based on your previous post, it sounds like you do but you have never given a clear "yes or no" answer - you know, like the one I gave you. You believe these to be the same situations, yes? If I am wrong, tell me why. But before you answer, let's consider for a moment that every one of those car ads comes with the small print: "Stunt driver. Shown with options." Remember that every drug ad comes with the disclaimers. Remember that every burger ad states: "quarter pound weight prior to cooking." So apparently there are people in this world who DO care about the decisions other people make. (They apparently are not on the opposite side of this conversation.) I found it telling that you said: Quote:
On 2008-03-25 21:21, Tom Cutts wrote: 3) So, let me get this right, as YOU are privy to information and experience others do not have, it should not matter what someone claims in an ad? Those who are not lucky to have your knowledge or experience can fend for themselves and "just get over it". Is that your position then? (I realize that is technically three questions, but as you won't actually ANSWER any of them, I think I am allowed that leeway.) I have given you the courtesy of many answers...you have only played games. Brad |
|||||||||
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5930 Posts |
If you are so excited for and bent on me not answering your "questions", I'll try not to disappoint you.
I tried to start at the beginning, the basics of the video. I have already posted what I saw. You are avoiding the rather simple and direct question I asked about what I percieved from the video. I'm perplexed what the strength of the magician's signed card appearing in the magician's tic tac box is? From your post I'm guessing he made it seem he had a better method than you know of for creating the illusion of the card he signed appearing in his own tic tac box. I'm not sure what has got you so excited as it seems a pretty weak effect... but I'm still waiting for you to tell us how your perception of the specific visual representation differs from my take on it. From that I might be able to comprehend why you think some special and wonderful new method is the natural assumption to make from a throw away video of a throw away effect. Are you assuming that card signed by the magician could have been signed by the spectator? Are you assuming the handling isn't as jerky as is shown in the video? When I see a poorly shot video of a poor effect, I pretty much do not have great expectations for the method. When I watch a poorly shot music video of a poor song, I also don't have great expectations for that performer's live show. To be clear nothing in that video nor about that video led me to expect a new creative method. WHAT specifically led you to your conclusions about that visual representation? 1) Your new examples involving cars are different situations. I don't think you believe they are based on the burger comparison answers you gave. All of which I pointed out in my post above. It was my point in bringing it up. 2)The weight of the burger is not in question. The dimensions of the burger and misrepresentation of what can actually be had at the establishment are. And you have stated that you overlook these misrepresentations because of your "expectations". I'm guessing those expectations are based on your experience. So, let me get this right, as YOU are privy to experience others do not have, it should not matter what someone misrepresents in an ad? And before you answer consider this. Nowhere in the ad does it state, actual patty will be smaller in dimension than shown, lettuce may be limp and nearly transparent, bun may be wilted and mangled. OK all ribbing aside...What on Earth about THAT video led you to conclude the method was going to be anything innovative? |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts |
Well Brad, I think I find Tom's position a strange one for a staff member of a board which the slogan is "Magicians helping magicians". He seems to think that it does not matter if anyone is misled, just so he does not rely on the advertisement it does not matter. Does not seem to keep with the theme of helping now does it?
I wonder if that is true of all the advertisers here on the Café'? I wonder if misleading ads are ok with everyone, or if it is a position Tom himself holds alone. Are the ads here indeed misleading as possible? Like I said, an odd position indeed. Lets take another magic name at random, say L&L Publishing. Do they advocate Tom's rather bizarre position that to be as misleading as possible is the goal? It would be good to know this information for sure. I know Tom likes to pretend to be philosophical and act superior, no problem. But when you examine the position, it really makes me wonder if he is just trying to wind people up. I can not imagine that Tom, live and in person, would advocate such things. He seems much more reasonable than that. But again I could be wrong. I want to know these things because if it is the position of the Café' or of L&L, it would affect if I wanted to use these particular resources or not. What I mean is I am not swayed by ads either, but I am swayed by company practices. So if this IS the position of those two organizations, then indeed it would put things in perspective. I am not saying it is the position, I am asking if it is.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
What led me to think it may be something new? Well, because (without tipping methods - a Café no no) I knew certain things had to happen for the trick to occur. And it was clear, these things were not happening or at least not happening in the ways they are normally accomplished. Could this young man have created something new or better? I'm pretty cynical, but I also know that even a broken clock is right twice a day. Maybe lightening struck. Clearly though, something different was at work in that video than what a knowledgeable magician would expect to happen.
And this is true. He is using a 'new' method - just not the one he sells. (And I am NOT talking about "the magician signed card!") Now, we could argue that the effect is the same, and that it is important for the magician to have the same experience of being fooled - but this is a ridiculous argument. It assumes magicians are laypeople. We are not. In the best cases, we are artists who use various tools to elicit a desired response from our audience. A great performer knows that a small difference can have a large impact. It was Tommy Wonder who wrote about that, I believe. You were there for that video shoot, were you not Tom? It was also Max Maven that said: "Everything matters." You were there for that shoot too, yes? So, the small differences allowed by using different tools do impact the effect and the feelingful response elicited from the audience. Now, some magician paint with a very wide brush. (That's Ammar's analogy - you were at those tape's shooting, or were they before your time?) Some people think, "A card trick is a card trick." They see no difference between a classic force and "think of a number, count down to half of the sum of the two digits....." From your posts, it seems that you are in that school. After all you said, "he magician signs a card, "loses" it in the deck, and then a magician signed card appears in a tic tac box. " If you are unable to discern the differences that specific techniques have on the perceived effect by the audience, then we really are at an impasse. Some of us DO care about those differences. You may not. And that's fine. But when we are promised a trick that does one thing in one way, and we get something that will NEVER do that thing in that way - then we are the victim of false advertising. Brad |
|||||||||
jonnyboy Inner circle San Diego 1021 Posts |
Gentlemen: Interesting theoretical discussion. And one can make analogies to burgers and cars, but these can never be exact. Going back to first principles, I was one of those who bought the effect, after checking out the video clip. My young daughter loves Tic Tacs, and I thought a trick employing the Tic Tac box would be nice. After checking out the video, and seeing the beautiful effect, I plunked down my $20. After I received the item, I was sorely disappointed that there was no way the trick could be performed the way it was shown. I felt defrauded of my money. The trick is sitting in my box of unused magic. This is the real world impact of the use of videos that do not show the actual handling to sell the trick to a relatively trusting consumer. While we come to expect a certain level of hype and puffery, we don't expect to be shown an impossible handling accomplished by editing when evaluating a purchase. It is wrong to do so, whether it is a legal wrong or an ethical wrong.
John |
|||||||||
truthteller Inner circle 2584 Posts |
I was just commenting to someone about the problem of "arguing analogies." It really doesn't work. Thanks for making that point concisely and clearly.
I will be curious to hear Tom's reaction. Tom, is it John's fault he bought a bad trick? |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Misleading advertising - video trailers? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.09 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |