The new super thin E7 stock - misleading advertising by Ellusionist?

[EndersGame]

Check out the picture below from Ellusionist (source), which is intended to show how thin their new E7 stock is compared with their B9 stock.

Notice especially how the yellow arrows indicate the how thick the two decks are. The size difference is represented by the arrow on the top right. Seems impressive, doesn't it?



But do you notice something wrong with this picture, and with the message it gives? The arrow on the top right is completely misleading, because it doesn't take into account the relative position of the two decks!

In the picture below, I compare the actual difference in size between the two yellow arrows, by using green lines to compare how the arrow on the left (B9) compares with the arrow on the right (E7). The pink arrows indicate the actual difference in thickness between these two decks. And it's considerably smaller than the yellow arrow that Ellusionist has added to the image on the top right!

Conclusion: Ellusionist is trying to make us think that the difference in thickness is much bigger than what it actually is.



Deceptive advertising? I think so. Regardless of whether this was intended deliberately or was just an accidental blunder by the person responsible for this image, this picture misrepresents the facts and gives a distorted impression, making things look much better than what they actually are.

Ellusionist, I'm calling you out, and and suggest you remove this image from your product page, or at least fix it!

[dkrouskop]

What's baffling about this is why they would try to exaggerate the difference at all. Based on your green lines, it's still a notable difference in thickness - enough of one that any hyperbole in the ad copy would still be basically accurate. So what was the benefit of adding a few millimeters by using a deceptive photo?

(For the record, I still want a few decks, exaggeration or not.)

[Don Boyer]

While the picture is a poor example for comparison purposes, I think they're telling the truth in that the newer E7 stock is much thinner than the B9.  But that's not a terribly hard feat - the B9 was pretty thick, especially the variety that was used in the Copag 310 decks.  Jirs Huygen from Cartamundi told me himself that the Copag 310 actually was being made with a thicker variety of B9 than the decks using that same stock.

[EndersGame]

While the picture is a poor example for comparison purposes, I think they're telling the truth in that the newer E7 stock is much thinner than the B9. 

Of course it's true that the E7 stock is much thinner than the B9 stock.  I have both the Red and Blue Cohorts decks and have compared them closely.  The actual difference is that the E7 deck is about 8 or 9 cards thinner than the B9 deck. 

Granted, that's a substantial difference, and I'm impressed with and like the thin stock.  But it's misleading to suggest that the E7 deck is more than 20 cards thinner, which is what the image implies. 

It's the yellow arrow at the top right of the marketing image that I have an issue with here, because that is what completely misrepresents and exaggerates the actual difference between the two decks.

[EndersGame]

Let's put this to rest once and for all.  I have both the Red B9 and the Blue E7 Cohort decks, so I took some of my own photos showing the difference in thickness more objectively.  These photos show both decks side-by-side, including all 52 cards and 2 Jokers.



Here's a close up shot, showing the individual cards more clearly.



How much of a difference is it?  Well count the cards between the lines and see for yourself.  The E7 deck is 6 cards thinner than the E9 deck.



Finally, here's a straight comparison and close-up. 



For the record, I do like the thin E7 deck, and I will be writing a positive review and article about it shortly.  It's slightly thinner than a typical USPCC deck with thin-crush stock. 

But I think it's important to be truthful and share facts, and not make things look more impressive than they actually are.  Hopefully my photos here help set the record straight about how the difference actually looks in person with the naked eye.

[EndersGame]

It actually gets worse.  I checked Ellusionist's original image more closely.  The B9 deck on the left has 56 cards, while the E7 deck on the right only has around 42 cards! See the image below, where I've shown detail from their product image, and marked each set of ten cards (counting up from the bottom of the deck).

Even if I've miscounted by a couple of cards, it's still an obvious discrepancy that proves that this is more than just a misleading perspective.  Ellusionist hasn't even got a complete deck of cards in their photo to begin with, so no wonder the E7 deck looks so much thinner - it's missing more than a dozen cards!  This also explains why the difference in the thickness of the two decks seems much more drastic in the comparative photo from Ellusionist than it does in my comparative photos.



Yikes.  How can that not be considered misleading?

[Don Boyer]

Of course it's true that the E7 stock is much thinner than the B9 stock.  I have both the Red and Blue Cohorts decks and have compared them closely.  The actual difference is that the E7 deck is about 8 or 9 cards thinner than the B9 deck. 

You see, there's your problem right there - you're measuring differences in terms of the thickness of a card, saying one deck is X number of cards thinner or thicker.  The thickness of a card will VARY, even in the same stock.  The only true way to measure it is by some objective standard, preferably using a micrometer.

It actually gets worse.  I checked Ellusionist's original image more closely.  The B9 deck on the left has 56 cards, while the E7 deck on the right only has around 42 cards! See the image below, where I've shown detail from their product image, and marked each set of ten cards (counting up from the bottom of the deck).

Even if I've miscounted by a couple of cards, it's still an obvious discrepancy that proves that this is more than just a misleading perspective.  Ellusionist hasn't even got a complete deck of cards in their photo to begin with, so no wonder the E7 deck looks so much thinner - it's missing more than a dozen cards!  This also explains why the difference in the thickness of the two decks seems much more drastic in the comparative photo from Ellusionist than it does in my comparative photos.



Yikes.  How can that not be considered misleading?

The photo is indeed a POOR example - but you can't possibly get an accurate count of the number of cards in the blue stack from that image.  You can't even see the entirety of the blue deck clearly because of the focus being set more for the red deck.  There are areas of blur where you simply can't distinguish one card from another.  Factor in that with the fact that the photo was taken at an angle and you really can't tell just what's X amount thicker or thinner with real accuracy.

I think they were trying to be illustrative with their example, but they did so with a bad photo for that purpose.  A simple side-by-side photo would have been much better for a proper comparison, but Ellusionist likes to make things a little more dramatic looking by using more dynamic and artistic images - two decks side-by-side isn't very dynamic or artistic, even if it is considerably more accurate.  They cared less about accuracy and more about selling cards.

[EndersGame]

The photo is indeed a POOR example - but you can't possibly get an accurate count of the number of cards in the blue stack from that image.  You can't even see the entirety of the blue deck clearly because of the focus being set more for the red deck.  There are areas of blur where you simply can't distinguish one card from another.  Factor in that with the fact that the photo was taken at an angle and you really can't tell just what's X amount thicker or thinner with real accuracy..

Actually if you download the larger original image, and zoom in using a photo editor, you can distinguish the cards quite clearly, Don, and count them accurately enough to get a pretty good estimate.  I may be a few cards out at most, but my careful count of 56 vs 42 has to be pretty close to the truth. 

I reached out to an Ellusionist representative for comment.  He confirmed that the E7 deck is in reality 6 cards thinner than the B9 deck.  In his words: "The difference in thickness is 6 red Cohort cards. As in, if you put the two decks side by side, and remove 6 red Cohorts from that deck, they are the same height. Just tested that and it's absolutely true."

As for the picture in question, he didn't dispute my conclusion that in the marketing photo the E9 deck had around 56 cards and the E7 deck had only 42 cards and wasn't a complete deck. This was his response: "Adverts sometimes exaggerate to make a point. Like, this may surprise you, but in the Bowflex ads? Those people looked like that already."

I like many Ellusionist products, including the much thinner stock of the E7 decks, but quite frankly I find this response very disappointing. Basically Ellusionist is telling us that we shouldn't expect them to be honest and reliable in their advertising, and effectively they're saying this: "Don't trust what we show you in our advertising pictures, because we won't always tell you the truth."   There's no indication in the accompanying ad copy that the product image is an exaggeration to make a point. It is clearly presented as giving an objective comparison between the thickness of the two decks, when in fact it turns out that one of the decks has more than a dozen cards missing!  Ellusionist's product page doesn't even mention that the actual difference between the two decks is only a thickness of 6 cards, while the image makes it look like it's more than 20 cards different (courtesy of more than a dozen cards being missing from the E7 deck, and misleading use of arrows). 

I find this deceptive and misleading, and this should make it harder for all of us to trust what Ellusionist says about their products - they seem quite happy to compromise the truth, if this example is any indication. In another forum, a person who works in advertising stated that exaggerating a visual representation like this is false advertising, and will get you sued and worse; he said further that if he ever did something what Ellusionist did with this promo image when doing an ad, he would get fired and blacklisted.

[Don Boyer]

The photo is indeed a POOR example - but you can't possibly get an accurate count of the number of cards in the blue stack from that image.  You can't even see the entirety of the blue deck clearly because of the focus being set more for the red deck.  There are areas of blur where you simply can't distinguish one card from another.  Factor in that with the fact that the photo was taken at an angle and you really can't tell just what's X amount thicker or thinner with real accuracy..

Actually if you download the larger original image, and zoom in using a photo editor, you can distinguish the cards quite clearly, Don, and count them accurately enough to get a pretty good estimate.  I may be a few cards out at most, but my careful count of 56 vs 42 has to be pretty close to the truth. 

I reached out to an Ellusionist representative for comment.  He confirmed that the E7 deck is in reality 6 cards thinner than the B9 deck.  In his words: "The difference in thickness is 6 red Cohort cards. As in, if you put the two decks side by side, and remove 6 red Cohorts from that deck, they are the same height. Just tested that and it's absolutely true."

As for the picture in question, he didn't dispute my conclusion that in the marketing photo the E9 deck had around 56 cards and the E7 deck had only 42 cards and wasn't a complete deck. This was his response: "Adverts sometimes exaggerate to make a point. Like, this may surprise you, but in the Bowflex ads? Those people looked like that already."

I like many Ellusionist products, including the much thinner stock of the E7 decks, but quite frankly I find this response very disappointing. Basically Ellusionist is telling us that we shouldn't expect them to be honest and reliable in their advertising, and effectively they're saying this: "Don't trust what we show you in our advertising pictures, because we won't always tell you the truth."   There's no indication in the accompanying ad copy that the product image is an exaggeration to make a point. It is clearly presented as giving an objective comparison between the thickness of the two decks, when in fact it turns out that one of the decks has more than a dozen cards missing!  Ellusionist's product page doesn't even mention that the actual difference between the two decks is only a thickness of 6 cards, while the image makes it look like it's more than 20 cards different (courtesy of more than a dozen cards being missing from the E7 deck, and misleading use of arrows). 

I find this deceptive and misleading, and this should make it harder for all of us to trust what Ellusionist says about their products - they seem quite happy to compromise the truth, if this example is any indication. In another forum, a person who works in advertising stated that exaggerating a visual representation like this is false advertising, and will get you sued and worse; he said further that if he ever did something what Ellusionist did with this promo image when doing an ad, he would get fired and blacklisted.

Well, if they're fessing up to rigging the photo, that's it in a nutshell.  I did give the original photo a close look; you can ALMOST tell how many cards are there, but there's a few places in shadow/poorly lit/poorly focused that make it hard to tell - but that's a moot point, since Ellusionist themselves are saying they "exaggerated."  Sure, people using Bowflex in ads looked like that before they touched a Bowflex in most cases, but that doesn't mean Bowflex doesn't look as it looks and perform as it performs in the ads, whereas showing a stack of cards for comparison against another stack - and they're NOT EQUAL STACKS - is just plain deceptive.  To use their Bowflex comparison, it's as if they were showing a Bowflex instantly turn a 98-pound weakling into a person with six-pack-abs after a single use, or if they were trying to compare it to another machine but that machine was only partially assembled and thus looked a little janky as a result...  This goes beyond stretching a point and into false advertising.

[EndersGame]

As further evidence that Ellusionist doesn't seem to be honest with us, here's some more fuel for the file.  On their product page for the Blue Cohorts deck, Ellusionist states that the E7 stock is exclusive to Ellusionist:

"Printed on our brand new luxury pressed E7 stock in a vibrant blue, this is the crushed stock deck you’ve been waiting for. We worked hand-in-hand with Cartamundi to find an answer to ‘Bicycle Crushed' and boy did we deliver! As an Ellusionist exclusive this is the only place you can get the thinner-stock cards produced with a durable Cartamundi finish."

Meanwhile, a brand new Kickstarter for the custom Conjurer deck from Arcadia Playing Cards states the following:

"Cards printed by Cartamundi on their exclusive E7 finish (also called B9 slimline). ... Yes, it's the same stock as the Blue Cohorts."

Wait, these statements contradict.  Is the E7 stock an Ellusionist exclusive, or is not an Ellusionist exclusive?  Someone isn't telling us the truth here.  And if this thread is any indication, methinks it might be Ellusionist that is the guilty party.  I have reached out them directly for their comment on this.

[Don Boyer]

As further evidence that Ellusionist doesn't seem to be honest with us, here's some more fuel for the file.  On their product page for the Blue Cohorts deck, Ellusionist states that the E7 stock is exclusive to Ellusionist:

"Printed on our brand new luxury pressed E7 stock in a vibrant blue, this is the crushed stock deck you’ve been waiting for. We worked hand-in-hand with Cartamundi to find an answer to ‘Bicycle Crushed' and boy did we deliver! As an Ellusionist exclusive this is the only place you can get the thinner-stock cards produced with a durable Cartamundi finish."

Meanwhile, a brand new Kickstarter for the custom Conjurer deck from Arcadia Playing Cards states the following:

"Cards printed by Cartamundi on their exclusive E7 finish (also called B9 slimline). ... Yes, it's the same stock as the Blue Cohorts."

Wait, these statements contradict.  Is the E7 stock an Ellusionist exclusive, or is not an Ellusionist exclusive?  Someone isn't telling us the truth here.  And if this thread is any indication, methinks it might be Ellusionist that is the guilty party.  I have reached out them directly for their comment on this.

They've always been prone to hyperbole, but I think in this case they're letting it get ahead of them.  Their claims are just a little too much to accept any more, when it's this easy to find proof to the contrary.  The only think I can think of in their defense would be that perhaps at the time they came out with the Blue Cohorts, they were the only ones with that stock and they just took that ball and ran with it, completely neglecting the likely possibility that someone else would use that stock in the future.  But even that's a pretty weak excuse.

[RyD09]

Hey guys I did get a reply from Christian at Arcadia cards, it reads:

"Hey, this is Christian from Arcadia. They are indeed the same stock and you're right, we were a bit hasty on throwing around the E7 name. We weren't told by Cartamundi that we couldn't say E7 when first writing the campaign, but we've now been informed to call it B9 Slimline. The E7 is indeed exclusive to Ellusionist, but this exclusivity will only last for until the end of this month. Hope this answered your questions."

[EndersGame]

That fits with the information I just got from Ellusionist.  It turns out that they only had a 6 month exclusive on the E7 stock, and according to this agreement, after that has expired (which is soon) Cartamundi will be using it for other projects and other customers.