Sorry, I really have missed the point here. What's the problem with this advert? It says they are bees, and they are bees! What's the problem? How is the trailer off-topic just because some guy is using them for cardistry? They're adding a bit of glamour to the cards.. no big deal. Again, it's an advert! They can do what they like with the cards, even have them spouting out of an elephant's rear for all I care, as long as it looks cool :cool: And what should they have asked Jason England for? :eek: Yes, I really haven't got a clue what you're problem is. Did I miss something? :( Perhaps a difference in taste? A different idea of how this particular brand should be advertised? As someone commented on the youtube page.. "theory11 should really make gambling demonstrations to promo Bee cards". If that's the case, then it's just a difference of artistic taste/opinion and there's nothing wrong with that at all.

Well, I suppose it's whatever floats your boat, but in this case, Bees were made for casino's and gambling by Bicycle, not T11. Then again, if Bicycle approved of the advert I suppose that's their right. Still... I just don't like seeing Bees used for cardistry, but that's just my opinion.

well, they ARE one of the best cards used for cardistry( 2 of the world's most expensive flourish decks are blue and brown Bee Wynn, and they have, what is currently one of the stiffest stock and finish there is), so it's fine that they are used like that, but you're right, bees shouldn't be used for performing flourishes.

I agree they look really crap in this vid and don't seem to fit flourishing at all, lol. But still, its just down to taste is it not? And I have impeccable taste, of course ;)

Bee Wynn decks are way different from the ones in the video though. The brown Wynns were actually re-released by T11 for cardistry, and they really suit that purpose thanks to the very simple yet versatile design (and I totally applaud T11 for that re-release). However, Casino Bee decks (and most if not all other borderless decks) don't suit that purpose.

The problem here is that T11's goal is to take over the world. Now, that is the goal of many companies, but I never ever seen a company who did that by ruining other companies from the inside.. by producing ads that are way off and making that whole company 'their own' by doing so.

The embedded Bee trailer, which is totally misrepresenting those cards, now is the official trailer for these cards.. cards that are supposed to be at the card table.. which is why I said they should have asked Jason England since he is T11's master at the card table. These cards and Michael Herp don't go together a slightest bit.

Imagine that someday they will hook up with Disney and produce the official trailer for Disney World, having Mickey, Goofy, Donald and the rest do card flourishes. Yes, it would indeed be cool for us, but not for the world. :hm:

That's a slight exaggeration and another question of taste. They can advertise the cards however they like, but a bad choice of setting and person in this video does not mean they are necessarily just "ruining other companies from the inside"; which is again somewhat overstating your point. In fact are they ruining a company from the inside? Or just helping that company to make more money. I'm pretty sure that T11 will have helped increase the USPCC's earnings, as have the other companies who join forces with them, of which there are many. T11 just made a different choice about who they were aiming for with that ad, plain and simple. Maybe they thought it was time to try to get the cardistry crowd into those cards; in fact I think that's exactly why this has been done.

You can't really say those cards are totally the wrong cards for cardistry, because yet again, what cards you use for cardistry comes down to your own personal taste. It's called finding your target audience, and sometimes brands like to try different audiences to widen their customer base. Its common practise and makes sense, even if you don't agree with their taste on this particular advertising push.

Fin, I don't think it comes down to just opinions. Look at the facts:

- The United Playing Card Company produces the highest quality and most versatile decks of cards in the world, for families, for magicians, for cardists, for gamblers, for collectors, they make it all;
- Each of the official ads for the different kinds of playing cards (all of them made by Theory11) contain cardistry, and cardistry only. That is: two for Bicycle cards, one for Tally-Ho's and now this one for Bee cards;
- Those advertisements, that focus merely on cardistry, could make laymen think 1) that those cards are only for cardists, 2) that each of those decks handle and are exactly the same apart from their back design, or 3) that those decks are all meant for in the same situations (whether it is cardisty or anything else).
- Apart from the four playing card ads, the USPCC has a series on the World Series Of Poker, one educational video (how cards are made) and only one other ad.. which is on playing cards with friends.

This is by no means making the customer base wider, it is making it smaller. Any marketer can tell you that the four playing card ads, only containing cardistry, are not making sense, especially not for a company (the USPCC, not Theory11) that produces cards for literally everyone, and thanks to T11 now seems to focus on cardists mainly, which may very well be the smallest customer base they have.

I also think a kind of Erdnase-vibe perhaps would've been better suited to show off these BEEs, but the USPCC must know what they are doing, they must have the final say in what gets put out.

I really doubt it.

I think that under those conditions, the USPCC accepted the deal and let Theory11 free in making these ads. But Theory11's "new generation of consumers" is merely based on cardists, which is a big (if not the biggest) part of their own consumer base. On top of that, there is no new market for the USPCC at T11 because cardists are called cardists for a reason.. because they already use playing cards.

Web development? Top notch!
Playing card design? Great!
Marketing? Started off okay, but went down the drain.
Brand enhancement? Making the USPCC look like Theory11 or a department of them = success. Other than that, not really.. except for on the website.
Creativity? I guess that these playing cards ads, each of them looking exactly the same while shot at different locations = no creativity.

You doubt that the leading manufacturers of playing cards know what they are doing. Okay Mark.

Not saying Mark here is right or wrong, because I really don't know myself. But there are times consumers know way better than the producers in terms of what would work and what wouldn't. It's not always right to doubt the company, but it's not always right to fully trust them either. I think gathering of facts are important here, but currently we lack a lot of it to come to a final conclusion :confused:.

Tom, I never said that (even though Albert has a good point, and I guess he thought of T11's *sigh* wonderful and extremely well received *sigh* teasers when saying that).

All I said is that I think that the USPCC gave T11 the freedom to do so. I don't blame the USPCC, I blame T11. Theory11 even puts their logo animation in these ads while no other third party would do or even dare to put their logo in another company's ad video, apart from in a credit section (either a credit section in the video or the video's description). Obviously T11 has quite some freedom in this strategic partnership.

That said, the world's leading card company did make several mistakes not that long ago, and has apologized for these after receiving major complaints, which shows that no company, no matter how big or small, is perfect. Same with Toyota some years ago. In the end they are all run by people too. At least the USPCC (and Toyota) apologized for their mistakes. When T11, one of the leading card artistry producers, admitted to be wrong about saying 'GPS' by Chris Kenner was impromptu which was stated for over two years, no single apology was made. 'Nuff said.

Bees for cardistry?
This is ridiculous.:ninja:

Yes Mark, all I was saying was I'm sure the USPCC had its reasons for letting theory11 make the adverts. And yes, judging by the video footage it seems theory11 did have a lot of freedom, with all the Cardistry.
Not really cause for ALERT though this topic.

I have to agree with Tommy here this post was posted in the topic.
I don't agree with Bee cards being linked to Cardistry, but hey, what do I have to say about that? I agree they weren't very creative... But again, if they do not want to be, and the video is well received, why bother? The only thing that disturbs me a little bit, is the fact theory11 is promoting their own stuff by showing cardistry in a video. It would have been better if they had shown some poker being played, or maybe poker sleights. By making the same video for every deck of cards, the cards lose their identity in my opinion.

This was earlier in the thread, but I felt like something needed to be said about the definition of impromptu. I feel like the definition should be something like this (I welcome people to disagree with any of this):
No gimmicks (meaning nothing the spectator doesn't know about) or setup (even "on the fly" setup) and objects could be borrowed and performed with on the spot.
I'm not trying to make myself some magic god with the final decision on a definition of a word, but this is just something I've been wanting to get off my chest since I saw GPS and Ellusionist's ridiculous video on impromptu magic.

I'm not to keen on including "no gimmicks or setup" in the definition of the word, mainly because there are many gimmicks and setups that can be utilized in impromptu manners without any problem, like the 'Invisible Deck' for instance. But yeah, usually setups indeed are not impromptu. ;)

I've planned on making magic definition videos so these may clear things up as soon as these will be released. :)

I found two more things about Theory11 that ticked me off this morning. On The Wire, there was a review for Zach Mueller and Michael Stern's effect 'The Vintage Holdout' which started off like this:
"It's a brilliant idea, not sure if it's original, but no one really cares about that anyway."
:eek: WHAT!
Theory11 (and commercialized magic in general) has made a new generation of magicians think that crediting doesn't matter. Like, at all. :cry:
Second was the trailer for Andy Nyman's new effect 'Insane'. While it sounds like a good trick, and it's getting good reviews (although what else could you get on Theory11), does any one else find it wrong that it's such a hyped up trailer that he never actually performs the effect? Same thing with a couple of tricks on The Wire, people just camera cut through what the effect "looks like". That just shouldn't happen. It's so wrong.