More
by Roy on October 27, 2006 20:47

more.jpg
Why do they put two of the same ad right beside each other? In my opinion, LESS is MORE. Then again, more of Shiho is not such a bad thing.



RSS feed | Trackback URI

4 Comments »

Comment by Derek UK on 2006-10-27 21:42:41

In advertising it’s usually more is better. Not always though if you think of the ad campaigns that appear not to advertise any thing.
Trick of the week. Can you go boss/cross eyed? If you can do it easily, fine. If not you might have to practice a bit following your finger as you bring it close to your nose.
Open this pic and carefully cross your eyes until one Shiho image sits on the other. With a little practice the 2 images will snap into 1 image. It won’t be 3D as both images are the same but the pic will look very crisp and clear. If you do find a stereo pair of images you can use this trick to get full 3D without using a viewer. Beginners will get a bit of eye strain so stop if it feels tiring. Have fun!

 
Comment by SlyEcho on 2006-10-27 23:07:02

Most probably they just bought some number of advertising spaces. The owner of the ad space has to put up exactly as many as ordered, never mind the fact that the only way to do it is to put the exact same ad side by side in some places, there simply is no choice.

I’ve even seen this happen on TV: the same ad running again after it ends. Seeing the same ad on a long commercial break is even not that rare.

I guess I have to mention Head On here, I couldn’t find a way to tie it to my comment so just look at the video on the ‘tubes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOvFIxUz2XY

 
Comment by abraxis on 2006-10-28 03:21:03

Now that’s fine advertising!

Dun get that back here in the US…!

I miss Tokyo!!

 
Comment by Ira on 2006-10-29 07:59:47

Two is one and one is none.

 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong> in your comment.