You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
137 points

When I buy a new car, the car is the same as the one in the posters and built by the same people.

A team of food stylists spent at least 30 minutes to create the perfect whopper for the add image and were paid 100 times more than an actual fast food employee to do so.

Why that is allowed to represent something made in 30 seconds by someone on shit wages is beyond me.

permalink
report
reply
55 points

Not to mention that the food stylists create something that isn’t even edible. They frequently use things that aren’t food to make it look more palatable onscreen.

permalink
report
parent
reply
39 points
*

I used to work in product photography. That is not true or legal here in Aus. The only thing they are allowed to use in the picture are ingredients used in store.

I cannot speak to the laws in other markets but that is not the case everywhere.

Of course they will go through hundreds of buns to find the perfect one etc, so it is still incredibly wasteful.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

Same thing in Europe. But I think in the US everything is allowed (surprise surprise)

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

This lawsuit is not happening in Australia.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

Even in places where they have to use the actual ingredients, there’s a lot of tricks to making it look different in photos. That burger might only be partially cooked to reduce shrinkage, then the burger and bun are frozen so they hold shape for the photo. Vegetables carefully picked out and arranged, tomato/pickles blotted dry, and the sauce applied with an eye dropper to provide visual balance after the rest of the burger is stacked.

I will say from my experience, that tends to apply to advertising photography for large franchises. If we’re taking about food photography associated with a high profile event or restaurant where food is actually served, there’s minimal difference between the photo plate and what’s actually served. Sometimes the photo plate is just one picked out while producing the ones being served, sometimes it’s the first/last plate and a person takes a minute to pick out the best looking of ingredients from the same container that was used to serve the rest. Sometimes it’s just an extra minute arranging the plate nicely compared to the last 150 that were done quickly to keep up with service. Often the photographer then gets to eat the plate they’ve just photographed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

Advertising is scum and I don’t understand why we allow it all.

It does not help the economy to distract consumers all day as much as possible, all it does is let companies compete on the basis of who can spend the most on advertising or who can hire the most manipulative advertisers rather than who can make the best product.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

Everyone thinks, “But advertising doesn’t work on me.” That’s why it’s still legal.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Advertising works on everyone. Just there are those of us that don’t impuls buy and look into and research the interesting product they just seen an ad for, before buying. But billboards those annoy the shit out of me. Like I know McDonald’s exists and there is a 70% chance there is one at the next exit, why do I need 4 billboards telling my there is a McDonald’s coming up in 5 exits?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points

People see pictures of North Korea and say “wow its so eerie something is wrong and i cant figure it out.”

Its that there are no ads everywhere. People are conditioned to be comforted by disengeuous promises from ads, and are scared when there arent business signs everywhere.

Its entirely achievable to have no ads. Ads are bad for everyone.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

Trust me that’s not the reason

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Vermont and Maine have banned billboard ads. It doesn’t feel like North Korea.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yeah, ads are the reason people in NK are starving.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

It should simply be considered false advertisement.

You can probably legally require your money back, saying it looks nothing like the photos, but that’s not enough imo

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

That’s why a big lawsuit is a better solution. They’ve already stolen the search cost from you, and are relying on you just giving up when you see your disappointment burger.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Fun fact, most car advertising uses a computer generated car. Photoreal cars bave been achievable for years now and it just makes sense for them to do it as they can keep it looking flawless throughout the ad. There’s even a “mocap” car with an adjustable body to match the length/width etc. of the car it’s supposed to be that they can just pin the model to.

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!worldnews@lemmy.ml

Create post

News from around the world!

Rules:

  • Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc

  • No NSFW content

  • No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

Community stats

  • 4.4K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 122K

    Comments