I thought you said that “Yet more dark images in which the watch cannot be seen properly” and that this was a sad trend. This inferring that you believed light and clear product shots were a requirement of successful marketing.FloridaPhil wrote: ↑Sun Apr 24, 2022 11:06 pmAre you being deliberately inflammatory or is that just your default mode? I clearly explained that I did not say what you said I did.Molan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 8:31 pmI’m sure you’re correct Phil, I’ll let the senior guys at Google marketing and creative know that they’re wrong and clearly don’t know what they’re talking aboutFloridaPhil wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 5:34 pm
And that's all fine and dandy except that I didn't say they should use 'a bloody great, screen filling product image'.
Anecdotally however, the number of times I DO see a comment on various FB pages or forums stating that the end-user's on-the-wrist photo is so much better than the murky stock images used by CW is quite amazing. I stand by my original comment.
The creative experts at, arguably the largest and most successful marketing operation in the world, do not agree with your outdated philosophy of what a good ad should look like.
Clearly, given it is, as you highlighted, a trend, neither do the marketing experts at either CW or their professional ad agency.
It is clear that, given the level of tracking and results-based analytics available, that Google, CW and their agency actually know what they’re talking about. . .