Ad Critique

[toddlaffler]

I posted an Ad for critque a few weeks ago and got some good feedback, and a lengthy debate on

"traditional" ads which have a headline, call to action etc. over a more minimal type of ad which I obviously

am leaning towards. So, I don't want to rehash that debate as I am settled on this type of advertising

(letting the image do most/all the work with minimal type, other than logo and contact information.) I

have used a similar type style ad before with good results (in my mind anyway).

 

So, this would be going in a local (NJ) bridal magazine. So, right away my market is very targeted. Having

said that, I am more interested in how effective people think the images I am trying out are, and how the

logo and contact info mesh with the photo, or are laid out. I know you guys aren't my target audience, but

hey you're someone, and perhaps will give me some food for thought regardless.

 

Instead of posting the image here, I am making it a link to a photo.net photo because of the size

limitations for posting an image here on the forum.

 

Here is the link: http://www.photo.net/photo/6278377&size=lg

 

Thanks for any input, and if I can return the favor, just let me know.

 

Warm Regards,

 

Todd

[mariah_smith]

I love it! I think it's clean and eye-catching. I really like how simple your logo and contact info are...it makes me think you're confident and I definitely look for that in a photog.

 

I think the picture's awesome too! Dang, she had a big 'ol bouquet, huh?!? :)

 

Good luck on attracting clients!

[colinsouthern]

Out of curiosity Todd, what does it cost to run the Ad?

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

[toddlaffler]

Mariah, thank you. Yes, it was one of the bigger bouquets I've ever seen. :)

 

Colin, to run this full color half page ad for a year (bi-annaul, Summer/Spring Issue and a

Fall/Winter Issue) is around $3,600.

[daydreamsart]

I love it! Attention grabbing for sure. I think the name and logo design should be a bit larger though.

[roxyandkaidotcom]

Love it!! Your ads always look great to me, Todd! :) :)

[colinsouthern]

Thanks Todd.

 

I'm just doing some "ballpark maths" here ...

 

I see from your website that you charge $2500 for doing a wedding. I'm trying to pick a figure that would represent the maximum per head cost to you of acquiring a new customer - obviously you have hard expenses - and obviously a man of your talents wants to come out of it with more than just money to "feed the cat".

 

So if I allowed, say, $500 per converted enquiry, do you think that that would sound about right? (or to put it another way, if I had a supply of brides whom I could guarantee would use your services if I told them to, how much could you afford to pay me for each one before my fee rose to the point of the whole exercise being uneconomic for you)?

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

[mreul]

nice ad...and love the pic! have you tried putting you name right above the other information just below the bride? i just wonder what this solution/option might look like? you already have a natural line leading the viewer right to her and the information w/ the railing so it might be very nice???? good job either way!

[stacy]

I think this will be an effective ad for you- it's really pretty :)

[laura_ryan2]

it's beautiful, I really love how the staircase leads your eye to the bride.. Great Job!

[toddlaffler]

CIndy, thanks for your input.

 

Sarah, awww shucks, thanks. :)

 

Colin, I'm looking at this way, if I only book 2 weddings from this ad, then it will more than

pay for itself. Obviously I don't want to just break even, but I am fairly confident that I will

book more than 2 from this ad running for a full year (being on news stands that is, 2

issues).

 

Also, I am not accounting for any of the add on stuff either such as second photographer,

prints, albums, engagement sessions etc. So, that would be some extra income as well.

 

I would say it's pretty safe to assume that I will book at least 5 weddings as a result of this

ad. So, after any add ons, I would be doing ok, at least I would think the return on

investment is pretty good. Now, here's the other thing, out of those 5 weddings, let's say I

get 2 referrals out them. That's just gravy at that point. So, my initial expense can keep

working for me, long after the ad has stopped running through referrals, which seems to

be the bulk of how we get business.

 

Colin, I'm just curious where you were going with you questions? Can you explain some

more?

 

Meg, thank you. I just tried putting the logo above the contact info to see how it looked.

I'm not really sure whicih I like better. Here is the link: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?

photo_id=6280186&size=lg

 

Stacy, thanks...we all know brides like "pretty" :)

 

Laura, thank you very much.

[toddlaffler]

Woops, that link didn't work:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6280186&size=lg

 

see if that works

[picturesque]

First logo placement is better. In the second, it adds too much weight to the bottom right area, plus the in the first one, the logo acts as an entry point for the eye.

 

The only thing I would say is to watch the whites on the bouquet and dress bosom area. On my monitor it looks slightly blown, but it is hard to tell from on-line images. I'd make sure the magazine reproduction was top notch so that this area doesn't blow out in the final ad. In a newspaper ad or in lower quality reproduction, I'd think that those areas would be blown for sure if you don't make a special effort to reign them in.

[mreul]

i like tham both too....but for the second option i would like to see what it looks like w/ all the type closer to the edge of the ad...but not too close...i see how you tried to make if flush w/ the bride although i don't know if it needs to be or if it might look cozier closer to the edge (farther right)....but like i said it's very nice.

[surfidaho]

Awesome. Totally freaking awesome.

 

I'm so very jealous. This image just plain works on so many levels. The vertical lines on the top and right side frame the image nicely and add excitement. The spiral staircase leads the eye into the bride perfectly. And the bride and gown are perfect for this composition. Of particular importance is the bride's build and the cut of the dress. Either too much cleavage or too much coverage would have ruined this shot.

 

I'm dying to know: Is this a real bride at a real location, or a carefully constructed model shoot? Either way it's brilliant, but if it's a real bride, all the more so.

 

Nadine is right about logo placement. The first one is better. But quite frankly, once customers see this stunning image, they will be looking for your phone number to book you right away. All the same, I would move the logo up and to the left a bit to balance the bride. Then it's all perfect.

 

Cheers,

 

Paulsky

[picturesque]

Oops...spelling error--"rein them in".

[mreul]

another reason i'd like to see the type at the bottom far right is you have this beautiful image w/ natural lines that already lead the viewer's eye to the bottom right....and why mess w/ that clean nice space? the line is awesome and for me my eye tends to fight w/ should i be looking at her or your logo...and no figting goes on (flows nicely and gently) if all was placed on the bottom but maybe the other works better - hummmm ;)

[mreul]

flush right w/ the extending far right line or her hair would be nice to see as an option....and then the rings are just a little to the right also of the middle (round thingy) on the stair well which could through in a little repetition - which isn't that noticable but maybe and this is always good... ;)

[mreul]

whoops - throw in - yeesh

[toddlaffler]

Nadine, the dress and the white flowers are close to being blown, but there is about 3

percent of Cyan Magenta and Yellow in them. If I go with this photo, I will bulk them up

alittle, but not much, I don't wnat them to look grey and flat. I know the upper right

portion is certainly blown out, and not much I can do about that i think, but I'm ok with

that, I don't think many brides get a loupe out to see if the highlights are blown. :)

 

Paul, thank you. :) This was shot at the brides house about 10 minutes prior to leaving for

the church. I didn't have much time, but I did scout her house out for photo ops when I

first arrived. This was just an obvious choice to me. If I do go with this image, I certainly

hope it makes potential clients dog ear this page or even better, run right for the

computer to check out my site. :) We'll see.

 

Meg, thanks for your toiling! :) I'm just not in love with any solution yet.I tried moving the

contact info under the logo moved it to the upper left area. I don't like how it seems to

break up the image, but I also don't like how it looks "jammed" under the bride either. I do

feel that in the upper left it balances out with the bride better, but like I said, it looks like

it's floating and breaks up the image, but I don't know how it won't do that! UGH!

 

Here is the latest placement for those that still care. :)

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6281561&size=lg

 

Now read my next post! lol

[toddlaffler]

STOP THE PRESSES!!!!! :)

 

OK, I just ran this ad by my wife and she thought the photo looked dated, like from the

80's due to the blinds and spiral staircase. I didn't think about it that way until she said

that. OUCH, now that's all I can see.

 

Now, no one has mentioned that yet but her, but am wondering now that I said that can

anyone see her point. I don't want to look dated.

 

One last concern, although I do love this image, I am wondering if it is really

representative of my overall body of wedding work. I am starting to overthink this aren't I?

lol HELP!

 

Todd

[colin_h1]

I just WOL'd... "Wowed Out Loud".

 

That is one heck of a picture Todd. Great ad.

[surfidaho]

Howdy!

 

I run photos by my wife all the time. She has good input, but I have veto power. ;<)>

 

The bride doesn't have an 80's hairstyle, and the architecture could be from any decade. They had spiral staircases and long blinds in the 60's as well.

 

The Bouquet Is Huge, now that you mention it, but since it's real, don't mess with it.

 

Let's say for the sake of argument, the image might evoke the 80's just a bit. That's not a bad thing at all. VH1 has a TV show out there called "I Love The 80's". It's a hit because many people (including myself) remember the 80's as a happy time. Many Mothers of Brides went to college in the 80's, and they're the ones who are signing the checks.

 

I think it's the cat's pajamas.

 

Later,

 

Paulsky

[picturesque]

I like that the blinds and lower part of the bride is blown. Adds to the image. But the bouquet flowers and bosom shouldn't be. I'm just saying...you do need to bulk that up, as you say, to avoid it going dead white in reproduction--as you probably know, the dynamic range narrows anytime you have a 2 dimensional (reflective) print, compared to a monitor image, which is lit from behind.

 

I don't think the image is dated either.

[picturesque]

I also like your latest logo position--just tweaked left and toward the top a little. I wouldn't try to center it between stair edges--just place it by eye, judging negative space.