Misleading advertising from Ellusionist about their new thin E7 stock?

Discussion in 'Product Questions and Reviews' started by EndersGame, Jun 9, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Check out the picture below from Ellusionist (source), which is intended to show how thin their new E7 stock is compared with their B9 stock. Notice especially how the yellow arrows indicate the how thick the two decks are. The size difference is represented by the arrow on the top right. Seems impressive, doesn't it?


    But do you notice something wrong with this picture, and with the message it gives? The arrow on the top right is completely misleading, because it doesn't take into account the relative position of the two decks!

    In the picture below, I compare the actual difference in size between the two yellow arrows, by using green lines to compare how the arrow on the left (B9) compares with the arrow on the right (E7). The pink arrows indicate the actual difference in thickness between these two decks. And it's considerably smaller than the yellow arrow that Ellusionist has added to the image on the top right!

    Conclusion: Ellusionist is trying to make us think that the difference in thickness is much bigger than what it actually is.


    Deceptive advertising? I think so. Regardless of whether this was intended deliberately or was just an accidental blunder by the person responsible for this image, this picture misrepresents the facts and gives a distorted impression, making things look much better than what they actually are.

    Ellusionist, I'm calling you out, and and suggest you remove this image from your product page, or at least fix it! :)
  2. Womp womp.

    The point is the blue deck is much thinner than the red. And it is -much- thinner.
  3. I don't think that's how the depth perception would work. It wouldn't just be a parallel line extended from the actual height of the cards. I agree that they haven't taken direct size into account here entirely, but it really isn't false advertising. I don't think any sane person is buying there decks for being 15 cards thinner as opposed to 12.
    Mr_ARPY likes this.
  4. The difference in thickness is 6 red Cohort cards. As in, if you put the two decks side by side, and remove 6 red Cohorts from that deck, they are the same height. Just tested that and it's absolutely true.

    Which is what G has said in the past - the difference is 6 cards.

    Some people just want to make it out like Ellusionist is some big evil company, despite the amount of good the company has legitimately done for the magic world.
    Mr_ARPY likes this.
  5. I agree. But I think whoever Ellusionist hired to make the photograph thought having an angled shot of both decks is more aesthetically pleasing than both decks side by side.

    Which goes to show how deceptive the photograph is, as the red Cohort deck in the photograph has an over 12 card difference.

    (Are the Jokers present in both decks?)

    What good? Jonathan Bayme leaving Ellusionist and creating Theory11?
  6. I can't get into specifics in most cases because things were said in private - however, many of the names we admire these days have gotten big boosts from E. Brad gets emails all the time from folks who released products, showing him what they've done with the success from those products. Or word gets back to us in other ways - people getting their first nice apartment from the royalties they got from big releases, buying cars, or maybe just being able to comfortably pay bills for the first time in ages.

    Most of E's 'bad' reputation comes from either armchair magicians not understanding the business side of the magic industry (particularly the retail portion), or from the occasional bad employee who was thought to represent the whole company but actually stabbed the company in the proverbial back. I know E takes a lashing on a regular basis from places like The Magic Cafe but that's mostly in regards to advertising - and people not realizing that the Magic Cafe isn't really our target market. Our advertising is very effective for the people we're actually aiming for.

    And yes - in ways I cannot go into - Ellusionist is a very big part of why Theory11 exists, and a couple other vendors too.

    And to wrap it all up - if there's ever any question about a product, email us. Support@ellusionist.com - I'll probably be the one to answer. Want to know exactly what the thickness difference in two decks is? Ask me. I'll tell you. Not sure a new product will fit your show? I'll be honest about it. I don't give away methods, obviously, but I've helped hundreds of people make informed choices about which products will suit them best.

    What doesn't really help anyone is "calling us out" for meaningless things like a picture trying to illustrate a point.
  7. Hi Christopher,

    For the record, I'm actually a big fan of Ellusionist, and have quite a few of your decks and videos. For example, check out my positive and detailed review here as evidence of nice things I can say about Ellusionist: https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1769976

    So please do read my original post in the context of positive support for your company. But let's be honest here - someone messed up here by putting in an arrow (top right) where it shouldn't be, and where it miscommunicates and misleads. That arrow not at all "meaningless" (to use your word). On the contrary, it was very meaningful, and the whole point of putting it there was to communicate meaning about the difference in thickness. But it's simply not accurate, because it suggests that the E7 stock is more than 20 cards thinner than the B9 stock. That is misleading, because it's more like 8 or 9 cards thinner.

    (By the way, that difference in thickness is already remarkable, and is something that doesn't even need exaggerating to impress! I have the Blue Cohorts deck, and am super impressed with the thin cards.)

    Here's my suggestion: Remove that top right arrow from the image on your product page, and we can all be totally okay with the picture. Without that arrow, the picture already speaks volumes about how thin the E7 stock is!
  8. I just told you - it's 6 cards thinner. Which is what G has said when he specifies how thin the deck is.
  9. Question for you: How many cards thinner does the top right arrow in this image make the E7 deck look? (click on the image to see it at full size, and you can literally count the cards)


    Hint: The correct answer is "more than 20". Do you, or do you not see the issue I am talking about?
    CWhite likes this.
  10. My 2 cents may not be worth much, but I'm going to throw it in anyway.

    If you are going to base your expectations entirely off of a photo when there is a description right underneath that say "6 cards thinner" you are choosing to be annoyed rather than having anything to be annoyed about, advertising photos will always show products in the best possible light, by using angles and whatnot to there advantage, do you also get annoyed when you buy a Big Mac that doesn't look exactly like the photo?

    It says underneath the stock is 6 cards difference, Christopher has repeated and patiently told you many times it's 6 cards thinner, it isn't misleading advertising.

    I have never had anything but great customer service from Ellusionist and Christopher in particular has been great in a very recent interaction.

    It's a stylised advertising photo, not a contract
    Maaz Hasan likes this.
  11. Furthermore, your picture that lines up the 2 decks doesn't even come close to 6 cards. It's an angle from above on an aesthetically pleasing photo. It's not false advertising.
    Antonio Diavolo likes this.
  12. Why doesn't the ad make that clear?

    What page are you looking at? Where does it say it's "6 cards thinner" on this page https://www.ellusionist.com/blue-cohorts.html ?

    It says underneath where? But it's nowhere in the ad so it is misleading advertising.
    CWhite and EndersGame like this.
  13. My bad, I wasn't on Ellusionist, I was looking at a different site.


    I don't know what it says on Ellusionist, but if you are taking the time to count the cards difference in a promotional picture, it seems as if you are looking for an excuse to be angry, the simple answer is, if it's aggravating you this much - just don't buy them.
  14. What Sorcery is this? Near as I can tell your picture is from https://www.justplaycards.com/blue-cohort-playing-cards-new-e27-stock

    But the sentence in your picture is not there:

    Not to mention that it should be "than" not "in".
  15. Let's put this to rest once and for all. I have both the Red B9 and the Blue E7 Cohort decks, so I took some of my own photos showing the difference in thickness more objectively. These photos show both decks side-by-side, including all 52 cards and 2 Jokers.


    Here's a close up shot, showing the individual cards more clearly.


    How much of a difference is it? Well count the cards between the lines and see for yourself. The E7 deck is 6 cards thinner than the E9 deck.


    Finally, here's a straight comparison and close-up.


    For the record, I do like the thin E7 deck, and I will be writing a positive review and article about it shortly. It's slightly thinner than a typical USPCC deck with thin-crush stock.

    But I think it's important to be truthful and share facts, and not make things look more impressive than they actually are. Hopefully my photos here help set the record straight about how the difference actually looks in person with the naked eye.
  16. Christopher, I'd respectfully like to get your comment on the above photos please, and the one below. I have checked Ellusionist's original image more closely. The B9 deck on the left has 56 cards, while the E7 deck on the right only has around 42 cards! See the image below, where I've shown detail from the product image, and marked each set of ten cards (counting up from the bottom of the deck). Open it in a new window to see it more clearly in larger size.

    Even if I've miscounted by a couple of cards, it's still an obvious discrepancy that proves that this is more than just a misleading perspective. The deck on the right in the product image isn't even a complete deck of cards to begin with, so no wonder the E7 deck looks so much thinner - it's missing more than a dozen cards! This also explains why the difference in the thickness of the two decks seems much more drastic in the comparative photo from Ellusionist than it does in my comparative photos.


    This can hardly be a "meaningless thing like a picture trying to illustrate a point", as you suggest. How can this not be considered misleading?
  17. Adverts sometimes exaggerate to make a point.

    Like, this may surprise you, but in the Bowflex ads? Those people looked like that already.
    PredicatedCard and Seth Hughes like this.
  18. You know what that actually is super sketchy I'm gonna flip slides here. I counted for myself too I got 59 on the first deck - 50 cards on the second. But again, I may have miscounted, especially on the second deck since the cards blend together. But yeah, compared to the side by side picture, this does seem exaggerated.

    I still wouldn't call it false advertising though, it isn't like they're putting them side by side with some cards missing showing you an exact difference which is exaggerated. The photo is obviously at a angle, which as viewers of the ad, we can obviously tell that it is angled for aesthetic purposes, not to directly show what the difference is.
    EndersGame likes this.
  19. Christopher, as an official Ellusionist representative, this means that you're basically telling us that we shouldn't expect Ellusionist to be honest and reliable in their advertising. Effectively you're saying this: "Don't trust what we show you in our advertising pictures, because we won't always tell you the truth." Is that really a message you want to send to your customers? Please reconsider.

    There is a simple and honest solution here that I'd suggest you consider: just include a caption below the photo that says: "Image is deliberately exaggerated for dramatic effect. Actual difference between the two decks is the thickness of 6 cards."
    CWhite likes this.
  20. For example.. say Bowflex... it says on the bottom... "Individual results may vary".. just saying..
    Gabriel Z. likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results