F'd Ad Fridays: "Disgusting" is not a very good brand association

Yeah, haha. Clever Photoshop work. But what happens when people run away from your pilates ads, while choking back hot vomit, before they get a chance to read the call-to-action?

Via Ads of The World

The Durex ad that I didn't need to see on World AIDS Day

Today is World AIDS Day. And while many great attempts have been made by social marketers to get people to practice safer sex, the sexual transmission of HIV continues at a worrying pace.

The biggest barrier is that fact that nobody really likes condom sex better than bare sex. "Shower in a raincoat," etc. It will always be seen as a sensory compromise, even if it can improve length of performance or allow a more relaxed response by offering peace of mind.

And even the condom manufacturers know it:

This ad was featured today in Photoshop Disasters, because of the badly altered hand, but I found the concept itself gave me pause.

So, apparently, did @sidgestion, who Tweeted another version of the ad with the comment, "you can leave her pleasantly puzzled - do I need to get an abortion?"

Indeed, the ad seems wrong on so many levels. That a woman would muse about whether her partner used a condom or not brings up all kinds of questions about sexual health, consent, and plain old respect in the bedroom. It implies that she really would rather you forwent the Jimmy cap and jumped in au naturel, no matter what she has said to the contrary. In some ways, this is as bad as "no means yes".

Yeah, yeah, I know. It's just a stupid ad. But in a world where some men would rather have their foreskins cut off than wear a condom, I don't think it's helping the cause any.

Scientists develop tool to measure Photoshop Disasters

Via Wired

Scientists in the United States have developed tools to quantify the amount that an image has been digitally manipulated — but only of they have access to the original image.

While Wired talks about the breakthrough as a way to regulate image manipulation in advertising, at a time when some jurisdictions are cracking down on altered images, Nature says the system was developed as a way of combatting image fraud in scientific journals.

Nature also quotes developer Hany Farid, a computer scientist who studies digital forensics, wo points out that this system is no magic bullet:

"The requirement for both original and retouched images is an obvious flaw in his system, admits Farid, as researchers can’t always find their originals. But, in his opinion, it is impossible to get an accurate score for the extent of manipulation without the original image. Moreover, for both scientific journals and popular magazines, the very act of requiring original images to be provided could act as a deterrent against manipulation, he says."

In advertising and the fashion industry, therefore, the system will only work if media or regulators institute a scale of manipulation and insist on access to unaltered images. Which won't do much to deter dishonest marketers, who are not bound by the same honour and reputation system as scientists.

So, while this is pretty cool, we'll probably have to keep discovering image fraud the old fashioned way.

F'd Ad Fridays: Does this look 'shopped to you?

I don't even want to know what this product is supposed to do to the poor girl to make her look like that.

Via PSD

The only ad people worse than those obsessed with Cannes...

Are those obsessed with being "above" Cannes.

They could have also done a much, much better job executing this.

Via Ads of The World

F'd Ad Fridays: I'll bet she gives really good...

Spotted in Singapore. Via Photoshop Disasters.

F'd Ad Fridays: Scary JesusWeen ad

I told you about JesusWeen earlier this week.

Photoshop Disasters recently featured one of their ads:

She's got the whole wo-rld, in her bum!

I thought I understood contemporary Christian symbolism. But I am baffled by this one. Any ideas?

F'd Ad Fridays: Bad anatomy

Gah! The monster baby's feet must stick out of her mouth.

Via Photoshop Disasters

Lazy Photoshop at La-Z-Boy

While browsing furniture on the weekend, I happened upon this in-store ad at La-Z-Boy in Ottawa:

From enjoying countless Photoshop Disasters, I could tell immediately that something wasn't right. So I looked closer:

De agony of de-feet.

Feet crudely chopped off. Bum flattened. And a chair that is apparently stuffed with concrete.

Why do major brands continue to find such shoddy work acceptable?