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. Implicit claim would be the bowflex commercial showing a buff person using their product. They are not showing lines on some dude they drew themselves claiming muscle growth etc. its just some buff person working out with their stuff. The Ellusionist ad is making an explicit claim (up to a point...)with their line drawing, the implicit claim they could have made would be just the decks near each other with no lines added to show the difference.

    Just for a comparison Subway was sued for their footlongs not measuring up to 12 inches. The issue was Subway made an explicit claim of length and they tried to weasel around that by saying things like its just a trademarked name, "Subway footlong", claiming it didn't mean their sandwiches were a certain size. Had they just said Sub sammich instead of footlong they would be fine with their 10-12 in sammiches.

    Now Ellusionist didn't make any claims of specific thinness but implied it to be far more than it is with their addition of the lines. They are probably fine legally because they didn't say something like 20 cards thinner than the other deck but that was implied for sure with the lines they added for the false comparison. Its kind of like a life insurance commercial showing a graph where they messed with the x y axis to imply larger growth over time than really happens. They didn't make a specific claim but they implied it a bit underhandedly, these actions go further than the bowflex comparison. These actions certainly reflect on them as a company, I'm getting rambly here so will be trying to keep with the food comparison...

    Does the burger on a menu look like what you get when you order it? In fast food or bad restaurants not really, those food pictures are doctored beyond the average food pictures to give the product a better appeal. Slightly higher end restaurants (like red robin etc) will have their food looking reasonably close to whats pictured. Nicer restaurants really don't have pics on their menus but when you get the food its usually fit for pictures.

    Ellusionist seemed to take a fast food approach to advertising this product plus a little extra due to their false comparison with the lines they drew. I think a higher end approach would have been fine with this product because people in the know will appreciate the thinness of that deck. I think because the product is fine most people are apt to overlook the deceptive advertising.

    Personally most of Ellusionist advertising isn't my bag, I'm probably not their target audience, but I do own some of their products and find them to be generally fine.
  2. Christopher, your product page for the Blue Cohorts deck also says that the new E7 stock is an Ellusionist exclusive:

    "Printed on our brand new luxury pressed E7 stock in a vibrant blue, this is the crushed stock deck you’ve been waiting for. We worked hand-in-hand with Cartamundi to find an answer to ‘Bicycle Crushed' and boy did we deliver! As an Ellusionist exclusive this is the only place you can get the thinner-stock cards produced with a durable Cartamundi finish."

    Yet the current Kickstarter for the Conjurer deck (link) by Arcadia Playing Cards says the following:

    "Cards printed by Cartamundi on their exclusive E7 finish (also called B9 slimline)."

    Ahem. Does that mean that the E7 stock is NOT an exclusive to Ellusionist after all, despite what the product page for the Blue Cohorts says?
  3. To be fair some of these questions may be better done in private messages, or probably through Ellusionist customer service links. This is an open forum at another site and not Ellusionist's customer service lines where questions like this would usually be directed towards and answered. I mean Christopher isn't really obligated to discuss these things here.
    Maaz Hasan likes this.
  4. True. Actually at the time I posted my latest post above, I did also send a private message to Ellusionist support to ask about this too, and to alert them to this apparent inconsistency.

    Having said that, these are questions about images and about information that Ellusionist is using publicly as part of their advertising. So it's entirely fair to ask these questions and discuss them publicly as well. If you put something out in public, expect the public to ask questions about it, also publicly.

    And I really do appreciate that Christopher is willing to join the public discussion about this, and engage with questions like these on this forum. It's only going to help Ellusionist to respond here rather than just to one person privately, since there are others who have exactly the same questions. So thank you sincerely Christopher for being willing to do this.
    CWhite likes this.
  5. I agree that it's fair to ask the questions, but I don't think it's fair to call out Christopher on every single thing. He just works for E, he isn't actively calling the shots. And here on the forums, he doesn't have to represent E, it's his own account.
  6. I agree, no one should be calling him out. However he joined the discussion and mentioned he would probably be the "support" you'd get if you contacted Ellusionist's support team.

    Just saying.
    Gabriel Z. likes this.
  7. Hey guys, think it's about time the thread has run its course. We appreciate the civility and constructive discussion, however we feel that any more questions about this product should go to Ellusionist customer support directly, as theory11 has no involvement with the product in question. If you have any questions you are free to message me privately. Thanks!
    WitchDocIsIn and Gabriel Z. like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results