How much do other magicians get paid for giving testimonials for marketed effects?

[Bob L]

Adam:

I suspect this abuse isn't over yet. You know how magicians can be. Better invest in a package of Depends.

Seriously, a very classy response to this thread, my friend. Well done.

May you continue to do well and may you never encounter a heckler with a bottle of Windex. :)

Best,
Bob L.

[Bill Duncan]

RP Wilson has posted his review on Magic Cafe...

Mr. Wilson\'s comments (and some others)

The demo is fairing better in Cafe-land.

[Guest]

Ha Ha Ha Ha HA HA HA! This trick is funny but not that bad. I think in my hands (naturally because I'm one of the best) it will kill. I just ordered one.
-DS

[MagicManCT]

I too have mixed feelings about the internet video demos,,,BUT, i think tricks like PINNACLE , JUST PASSIN THROUGH and the NINJA RINGS have become BIG hits because of the video demos so it can work BOTH ways i guess,,,,,also i usually don;t buy anything new until i start reading some reviews from people who actually OWN and USE the effect,,,,it seems tooooooo often on the boards people discuss effects they do NOT even own.....the BEST way to buy magic is to see the effect IN PERSON if possible.

[thecardman]

I'll state this now, I have not watched the video of Adam's effect. I'd rather wait and see it with my own eyes live, which I'll probably do at the next convention I attend. Anyway, here's a quick generalised question for everyone saying that, to them, the method of Adam's effect is obvious.

When you buy a trick, why do you buy it? Do you buy it because you think you could use it in your show or do you buy it because it fooled the hell out of you and you want to know how it is done?

Just a wee thought!

Peter
:)

[Ian Kendall]

We seem to be getting away from the source of the thread, which was to do with the endorsements from prominent magicians. If Aaron Fisher was, as he says, nailed by the routine then all is well with the world.

To be fair, of the other three quotes, none refers to the fooling-of-magicians properties of the effect. Paul like it and said there were many applications (possible), Lee thinks it is clever (again, possible) and Nate thinks it is new (possible) and hot (Ummm).

Adam seems to have taken it a bit personally, which I doubt was the intention. Perhaps we can all learn the rushing something for someone else's deadline might not be the best idea, that magicians can be every bit as cynical as the British public (and British magicians, whoo hoo) and sometimes comments made in conversation by famous magicians can be misappropriated for publicity by some people (but not Adam).

Take care,

Ian

'Incredible!' - David Berglas

[Matthew Field]

Originally posted by Adam Grace:
Cut me some slack here boys.

Adam -- I admire your response. You explained the situation, in a good-humored way, and I think that's the right thing to do.

Well done.

Matt Field

[Bill Duncan]

Lee,
Glad to see you sticking up for your opinion. If you review the thread you'll note that I offered the opinion that the effect had potential. I also mentioned that I thought the demo showed a rush to market.

None of the bad feelings this thread have engendered would have occured if the video hadn't been made and posted so some of the "blame" for this must surely rest with the person who posted the video.

On Magic Cafe I defended your "Losing Control" when it was being slammed because a video clip on your own site exposed the method and made it seem obvious to those how hadn't seen it live. Perhaps there are some effects that shouldn't have a web demo? In both cases people who viewed the videos were able to determine the method on one or two short viewings.

There's a very simple solution to these problems: release no effect or demo before it's time.

For the record, I doubt anyone really thought you'd been paid for an endorsement. I think the question was phrased as it was to underscore how badly the effect came off in the demo.

Cheers
b

[Guest]

I have not seen the video for this effect, but I have seen Adam perform it about half a dozen times. It is an excellent effect. I have watched him fool both laymen and magicians with it. (And these magicians were not new to magic--they have been in magic for decades.) The effect requires misdirection, and as we all know, you cannot misdirect the camera. Adam misdirects very well and adheres to Malini's advice of waiting until the proper moment. (Adam has fooled me more than once using misdirection.) On a video, however, the interaction required for proper misdirection does not exist. And those that post here, know that. To layman, the piece of glass never leaves their sight and is not manipulated in any way. To be honest, Adam did not fool me with the effect, but I'm not so ego-centric to believe that if it didn't fool me, it won't fool anybody.

What excited me most about the effect was that it was new. We are constantly buying books and tricks that are just handlings of something else. However, handlings are the easiest things to create in magic. Methods are harder to create than handlings. But, effects are the most difficult of all. 95% of all those who think they "create," only work out yet another handling of an existing idea. New effects are few and far between. I don't recall ever seeing the effect of making ink penetrate through glass before. As far as I know, this is completely new and should be applauded. I also believe the method to achieve this new effect to be very clever. Out of all the times I have watched Adam perform the effect, I have yet to see a layman tumble to the method.

For the record, I am a friend of Adam's. However, my comments above would be the same if I did not know him.

Bill Goodwin

[Richard Kaufman]

Now things are getting interesting!
Lee, you really shouldn't sound so defensive. And you shouldn't come down so hard on people who form an opinion based on seeing a performance of the trick on the Internet. While you may quote technical info about the number of frames per second that may be missing when YOU watched the clip, I saw a pretty smooth image on my computer when I watched it.
The very purpose of having video demos on the Internet is so people can form an opinion of the item being demonstrated before they buy it. That is exactly what has happened here. They formed their opinions, and they were poor.
If an effect like this that requires both misdirection AND a live eye to see the subtle nature of whether the ink is on the upper or lower side of the glass looks so poor on video, then it was a dumb idea to put a video clip of it on the net. With this particular effect, redoing the video will probably not improve things.
The fact that you and Goodwin have stated that the thing looks great live is interesting. I think we can all just forget the idea that people are paid for their endorsements--that may happen in the real world, but in the little world of magic there's not enough money to go around to buy someone a hamburger let along bribe someone for an endorsement.

[Robert Allen]

Some very good comments in response to the questions raised in this thread, particularly Lee Ashers response.

Reviews have their place, just as video clips do. A video clip allows you to see at least a worse-case scenario of what the trick is like in performance, which you can use to help you make a decision, when coupled with the ad copy for a trick, and your own imagination. Some of the ad copy on Hank Lee's says this: " Right in front of their eyes, the writing on the glass changes into the correct card! This one is really frightening!" Perhaps if that effect was in the video clip there would have been less heat about this. I would hope that the routine which generated the comments in the ad copy are routines provided with the apparatus.

I don't think anyone who participated in the criticisms was trying to say anything other than "with all these quotes, and based on what I've seen on the video, wtf am I missing here that makes this such an awesome trick?"

Maybe the dispute over Stained Glass is an example of a quote attributed to Jeff McBride - "For others to believe in you, you need to believe in yourself." On the other hand, maybe Dick Zimmermans' comment that when developing a routine for presentation one should "start with the strongest magic you can" is more apropos. Maybe I'll have to put my money where my mouth is to find out.

The modus of this trick is an interesting concept, and if this is its first appearance Adam Grace should get full marks for publishing it. Maybe it's worth $15 to not have to find a glass store to get some scrap cut & edge polished, then run to another store to get a pen, in order to experiment with the concept. Or maybe those who say this should have been saved as a minor part of some lecture notes in the future have a point.

I think the best point I've seen made here is from Adam Grace himself:

If you buy this trick from my website and don't like it for any reason, I'll give you your fifteen bucks back.

(my emphasis added to the words "my website" so people don't order it from a retailer and then ask the manufacturer to refund the full retail price)

You won't find too many guarantees like that in this business.

[Guest]

Lee,

The effect didnt make me say, "Wow," but your first post did. Im not sure where to begin, so Ill just take it point by point.

1) Point well taken.

2) Its true, statements about "how terrible the effect is and how transparent the method is" might indicate some of us have no imagination for magic. But, and I admittedly say this without any knowledge of YOUR actual rank or involvement in Military Intelligence (though I thank you for your service), its also possible the statements may simply reflect how terrible the effect is and how transparent the method appears to be. I for one was unaware the clip was playing at 15 FPS as opposed to 29.97, neither did I realize it was encoded for a 360x240 screen, but, as Einstein once said, "So what?" Next time Adam wants to use a video clip to sell product have him record it at a faster speed and encode it for a bigger screen, but dont blame the consumer if it doesnt do the effect justice. For the record, I didnt make a decision after "watching THAT once!" I watched it four times then made my decision, though admittedly my opinion after the fourth viewing was the same as it was after the first.

Youre also right in that Im one who never saw the effect live. Had Adam invited me to coffee and performed the effect for me in person my opinion of it might have been different. But he didnt. Instead, he asked me to buy the effect based on "a one-eyed half blind web-cam," and the opinion of four reputable people whose judgement has been called into question due to the apparent failings of said web-cam. Im completely open to lunch and having my mind changed.

3) Now for the real reason why I am writing this I am about to offend you, but if this is painful for you, remember a wise, but somewhat defensive man once wrote, "the truth hurts"

That said, are you insane or is your ego inflating exponentially?

If you are the kind of person who chooses to lend credibility to a product by endorsing it with a quote, then criticizes those who may purchase said product because of your quote, then YOU ARE THE DEFINITION OF LAME. I didnt buy Adams effect based on your quote or a review. I didnt buy it at all. And as far as I can tell no one posting on this thread based their criticism on any quote or review either. They viewed the clip and decided for themselves. They didnt need your quote to tell them if they liked it or not, they were just puzzled by it.

But lets not be nave, endorsements effect purchasing. Thats why your endorsement is there. I cant remember the last thing I purchased based on a review, but there are artists whose judgement I trust and whose endorsement of an unseen effect may sway my decision. For many, you are one such artist. You know that. You knew that when you gave the quote. Thats why you did it. If you cant take the heat when people disagree with you then dont attach your name to other peoples products. Its that simple.

4)I dont disagree with you here. I believe you found one of the ideas "clever," even "very clever." I accept thats how you felt and I believe you endorsed the product sincerely, I simply disagree with, and was surprised by, your endorsement. You may be right; this may be a wonderful effect. After my lunch with Adam I may be eating crow and singing its praises. The problem is for now all I have to go on is a clip you say is crap and four quotes, but we all know what you think of uncreative, LAME people who purchase based on the opinions of others.

5)Lastly, you say you cant come in to the forums each time someone questions why youve given a quote. Why not? Didnt you say youve only endorsed a handful of products? Whats four or five posts in defense of the art and a good effect? Do I think you liked writing this post? No, I think you LOVED it, and if you really want us all to think about our OWN tastes and opinions then stop attaching YOURS.

I still dont think you have a lot to learn from Adams effect, but I think there is much you can learn from his response, as opposed to your own. This is an opinionated bunch and posts can get pointed, harsh and sometimes nasty, but its that honest, and sometimes razor sharp, dialogue that keeps it interesting. Adam took it on the chin with humor and class. Enough so that I think most here would be willing to give Stained Glass a second lookjust not on-line.

Ray

[Robert Allen]

FYI there's a parallel thread on this thread running over at the magic cafe. I'm tempted to take a few quotes out of context and post them here but that would be MISLEADING so here is the link:

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/view ... &forum=109

I don't think this issue is worth flaming about, here or there, but it does seem that the debate continues. Perhaps it's that old "there's no such thing as bad publicity" thang in action :) .

[Guest]

Mr. Goodwin says that you cannot misdirect a camera and he rightly says "as we all know"

Rightly because most magicians believe this fiction.However it is not true. You CAN misdirect the camera. This sacred tommyrot has always irritated me because it is a false axiom.

There is a human being behind the camera. You misdirect the human being not the camera. If there is more than one camera it simply means that there is more than one human being. You misdirect the extra human being or beings in the same way as you would misdirect them without the camera being there.

A little trickier perhaps but it can be done. A little slower and more cumbersome but if you know what you are doing it can be done. No need to set things up with the producer beforehand letting them into the secret and telling them to direct the cameras elsewhere when you want that to happen.

As long as there are monitors around you can see what the camera is looking at and if you move your misdirecting hand slowly somewhere else then the camera will stupidly follow. The cameraman will have no idea that you are manipulating him.

Of course this is going off at a tangent. There is ONLY one method of judging if this trick is good. The reaction of a lay audience. The opinions of other magicians are of no consequence whatever.

Incidentally, was that Adam on the tape or some Hank Lee employee? Whoever it was struck me as a good performer even though I couldn't see the trick properly because of the inadequate video.
He spoke clearly and distinctly which can be quite an advantage for a magician.

I saw some awful mentalist in Toronto and couldn't
make out a word he said. The fellow has a reputation among magicians. I have no idea if he deserved the reputation because all he did was mumble and I have no idea to this day what he said.

I still have no idea if the stained glass thing is any good or not but at least the performer whoever he is does not mumble.

I would rather see a bad trick done be a non mumbler than a good one by a mumbler.

On that basis I like this stained glass trick even though I have no idea what the effect was supposed to be.

[Guest]

Adam,
I would just like to say your response to all the negativity on the Genii forum ( myself included ) was done very professonally and with a good sense of humor. After viewing the video, which I feel degrades your effect, I figured everyone could see through this thing.Judging from the posts on Genii everyone did.
I have bought hundreds of tricks over the years that are real turkeys and are now setting someplace in my room collecting dust.Your mistake was making the video, I feel if you would have advertised it without the video it would sound very intriquing and you would have sold more.
Hopefully the problem you ran into with this effect does not detract you from inventing more good magic, this is something we need , another Steve Duscheck and his creative mind.This should just make you work harder and be more creative, and for god's sake review your video demo.
Thanks for reading,
Rennie

[Dave Shepherd]

As one of the first critics, let me say that Adam Grace's response was, well, graceful. As weak as the presentation is on the demo video, clearly there are strong possibilities with this method.

Lee Asher's response was puzzling. After reading it again a couple times, it feels as though I, as an audience member of the video performance, am being blamed because I didn't get it.

When I wrote earlier, I was careful to say that this routine didn't do it for me, and that the trick, "at least as presented in this video," was undeceptive.

I know Adam Grace's name from other material, and I have no reason to doubt his creativity. I just feel that this one was let loose a bit early...

... or at least the performance on the video was.

[Dave Shepherd]

Okay, now here's an interesting insight:

I just showed my non-magician wife (who knows a thing or two, but still has both feet planted in layman-land) the video.

She said it was an impressive trick, that it went on too long...

...and she described the method to me, saying that at the beginning she assumed he turned the glass over. She said that later on when he was rubbing off letters from both sides, she realized she was "wrong."

Apparently the re-writing of "WOW" went by her.

So maybe I am being just too clever after all.

[Scott Fridinger]

Unfortunately I think the video is no longer there, so I could not see what all the noise is about. :(
Scott

[Guest]

Yikes! This has turned into a monster post! Although this publicity has been rather good for sales, I think it is my duty to offer the real comments that were made by these magicians. You will see why I had to edit them for usage in my ad copy. The capital words are the ones I actually used.

Its OUTSTANDING how you keep inventing this crap! THIS TRICK HAS SO MANY problems; I dont know where to start. I think you should start by putting in some APPLICATIONS at fast food joints! - R. Paul Wilson

It is EXCELLENT how you can make nothing from nothing! When I told you how bad the trick is YOU NAILED ME in the face with that un-gaffed piece of glass. It really hurt. But it still doesnt hurt as bad as sitting through this worthless thing. -
Aaron Fisher

Its VERY, VERY CLEVER how you intend to rob the magic community with this trick. Let me warn you though, dont put a video of it on the internet. The guys at the Genii Forum will see right through it. Lee Asher

THIS sucks! It IS not even a trick. You need to find a NEW profession quick! Why are you burning me with that cigarette? Ouch! Stop it! THIS IS HOT! - Nate Kranzo

As you can see, it is very easy to move sentences, punctuations, and meaning in order to create the quotation you desire. I was going to use the following quotes but decided against it.

I spent a lot of time thinking on the Bible. You know ADAM and Eve. It was only by Gods GRACE that I survived. God IS THE GREATEST. I am very glad to be out of THE box. All of that GLASS it was a real TRICK to stay away from the sun. Being home IS THE BEST. - David Blaine

Saddam has STAINED the streets of Iraq with blood! There were buildings destroyed and GLASS everywhere! IS this freedom? No. Freedom is A GREAT THING. Freedom is ONE OF HE GREATEST GIFTS THAT GOD HAS GIVEN US.
-George W. Bush (Taken from the State of the Union Address)

I honestly dont see why more people use this kind of advertising. It is a bit time consuming but ultimately can sell your trick. Good Luck!

[Robert Allen]

What, no quote from the Iraqi Information minister? :)

[Guest]

This has truly turned into the thread that will not die. As one of the early "offenders", let me say (this time without the sarcasm) why I bothered entering the fray. The problem is not with the video demo in itself (although everyone, including Mr. Grace himself, has admitted it is weak and the method obvious). The problem is not with the endorsements. The problem is with the outrageous discrepancy between the demo and those endorsements.

Mr. Asher and others have criticized our reliance on both the demo and the endorsements, but I would point out that for many who don't attend every convention or live within easy access of the Magic Castle, for instance, we are forced to rely on second-hand information to make purchasing decisions. This does not mean, as Mr. Asher argues, that we are all merely sheep without our own opinions (although sadly there is plenty of that in magic too). If we are not privileged enough to see effects live, we have no choice but to form judgments based on the opinions of those we trust. When those magicians whose work we respect endorse products which are inferior, they lose our trust. I personally couldn't care less whether Mr. Asher or the others received money or whether they are friends of Mr. Grace. The magic community was offered only one venue for judging this routine: a video demo which was less than deceptive. We then looked at the glowing endorsements and the question marks started taking shape above our heads. It's really no more complicated than that.

As to the effect itself, many have pointed out that we are not laymen and are therefore not qualified to judge whether this effect "plays" with "real audiences". How smug and condescending. Too many magicians view their "victims" as slow-witted and naive. I have no doubt that even the most obvious effect could fool many audiences, but we should strive for effects which would fool the most astute audiences, shouldn't we? The effect may be new, and, as others have hurriedly and guiltily pointed out after Mr. Grace's graceful (sorry) post, the idea may well have merit. The palindrome, however, and the resulting restrictions, make the method obvious or at least suspicious to the thoughtful observer. One needn't know about turnover moves to question why a word which looks identical when reversed was chosen. Symmetrical shapes, freely chosen by the participant, seem to offer greater possibilities. The ad talks about the effect being immediately repeatable. But what if the participant wants it to be repeated with, for instance, her own name? These are problems. It doesn't mean that the idea should be scrapped. On the contrary, greater dialogue encourages improvement. Some posts have been snide; my own post was quite sarcastic. The sarcasm was aimed at the problems in the routine and at the foolish although perhaps unavoidable reliance of magicians on the opinions of others (and I include myself in this). We must, I think, be courteous to one another as human beings; we must be unapologetically and pitilessly honest with one another as artists.

[David Mitchell]

Lee plotted to toss me in a lake, I've been put in my place by Aaron, and Nate, well, Nate's just a nice guy.

That said, anything those three like, is something that needs to be looked at. There is more talent in those three people, that I will most likely ever begin to realize, and if I can even marginally take advantage of what they think is a clever, and potentially great effect, then I am going to stand up and listen to them.

Yes I saw the demo, and yes, I will agree that a video might not have been the best way to showcase this effect, but even I can see how this can be a potentially great effect, if the performers strengths are utilized properly.

My hat is off to you Adam, thought it's going back on pretty fast, it's starting to get chilly up here.

David.

[Robert Allen]

Sheep :)

Remember, the issue was "did these people say it, did they mean it,and if so, why?", not "we are smarter than these people."

[Guest]

Enough with the excuses. If you don't think that a low-quality video isn't representative of your product, don't have it available online. Don't make a terrible video and give it to dealers to put on their webpages if you think it stinks.
The intent of the video is to give prosective purchasers an idea of what the product is like; don't critisize them for making conclusions based on YOUR video.
You can live by the video and die by the video.

HR

[Guest]

I believe that there are two threads developing: the value of Stained Glass as an effect and the veracity of glowing quotes used to sell an effect.

I have my own thoughts on the latter, which I will not go into now.

On the former, however, I think there is some value to the effect (or at least the method). I liked the method when I read Terri Rogers suggestions; I still think it has its uses.

I would like to make a modest suggestion or two. First, I think the performer might disguise part of the method by using a bit of felt or a small whiteboard eraser when erasing the lettering. Use the eraser with your right hand, and perform the secret removal with a flick of a finger of your left hand (covered by the eraser). When the eraser is being used, there is an unstated assumption that it must be used.

A second suggestion, which disguises the palindrome/letter reversal requirement, is to use a word composes of letters that are horizontally reflective. That is, use block B, C, D, E, H, I, K O, X, and flip the glass end-for-end rather than left-to-right. You may even be able to use one or two non-reflexive letters, provided you erase them before you show the pass-through.

0pus

[Guest]

Adam's point about quoting reviews out of context is actually an old trick.

Theatres use it all the time in their front of house displays. I read this in a newspaper article about 25 years ago. It amused me and has stuck in my mind ever since

Someone might say "it is amazing that this awful production has been allowed to be foisted on the public"

The theatre will just put the one word "amazing" in quotation marks and give the reviewers name and newspaper.

[Robert Allen]

I'm not sure that Adam was trying to make "a point" with his satirical post. I'm not sure you are with your post either. There's not much point to be made unless you're suggesting that magicians are in good company for using sleazy tactics for advertising.

I doubt that any reputable theater would use the tactic you describe nowadays.

[Angelo Carbone]

Maybe a thinner piece of glass would help too so that the depth between the upper and lower letters would be reduced.

[Robert Allen]

Hmm, good idea about thin glass. Over at the Magic Cafe thread there was some discussion of the letters looking different colors under the two different circumstances (one was described as "grayish"), but the video I saw wasn't clear enough for me to notice such a thing.

[Dave Shepherd]

I noticed the "grayed-out" letters right away, but my wife did not perceive them at all. I guess I was looking for them.

Opus's suggestions are quite nice indeed, I think. In addition to using an eraser for some "shade," it occurred to me that one might contrive to "accidentally" introduce an imperfection in a letter or in wiping a letter off.

I haven't thought this through very far, but I think it might make the trick less perfect, and thus more likely to fool the too-clever.

[Guest]

Robert is making a big deal out of my gentle posting. I was not trying to make a point. It is pointless attempting to make points to magicians since they all chatter about pointless things. There is no point in continuing this pointless discussion about me trying to make a point since I am not trying to make one. And Robert hasn't made much of a point either. In fact I think his post was somewhat pointless.

I hope I have made my point.

I was merely providing information nothing else. No big deal. I was not trying to promote sleazy advertising although I have no objection to it. I was not trying to say that anyone else was advertising in a sleazy way either.

I was simply regaling everyone with the fact that I once read in a newspaper that the technique of selective quoting is a common practice in theatre lobbies.

Nothing more.

However, I can assure him that this type of selective advertising is still used all the time by theatres. I have seen it with my own eyes even recently.

I rather think magicians lead sheltered lives. They should get out more.
They are supposed to be experts in deception yet they know very little about it.

If you go through life only doing business with honest people you will never get anything done.

A great magician once told me that.

Mark Lewis
www.marklewisentertainment.com

[Bob L]

A brief off-topic digression....

I doubt that any reputable theater would use the tactic you describe nowadays.

You're right, Robert. Here in Hollywood, Sony Studios just makes up fictitious critics and then writes quotes for them. We have too much class to misquote someone.

:D

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,8385,00.html

[Guest]

Quite right too. I must say after having read this that I am full of unbounded admiration for Sony studios.

Actually, I have always known that the top executives of big companies are crooks. Only the very top though. All the underlings are quite prim and proper. All amateur magicians no doubt.

I used to do business with a big international company that you have all heard of and couldn't believe the things they talked about and the things they advised me to do.
All illegal.
Yet it was only the very top echelons that talked like this in the privacy of their boardrooms.
I felt quite saintly in comparison.

Mark Lewis

[Guest]

Originally posted by Ryan Matney:
Re Andy Leviss comments, It's unrealistic to think that tricks are not discussed like this in group situations in person. They always have been and always will be. How many times have you slammed a trick with friends after seeing a LIVE performance?

What exactly does this have to do with anything I said? My point was that video demoes are an unfair and unrealistic portrayal of an effect that, in and of itself, makes them a terrible idea IMHO. Add to that the tendency of many magicians to repeatedly view and overanalyze said poor representations, and it becomes a disastrous thing.

On other subjects, Peter asks if this isn't the best argument to do your own demoes, and I think it's the best argument not to. If my comments on other dealers' inferior demoes stood on their own, sure, do your own demo. The fact is, however, that video, specifically web-optimized video, is an awful, awful format for representing an effect accurately, regardless of who performs it. My primary argument against it stands whether you make one yourself or not--web demo videos don't provide accurate portrayals of the effect, and encourage people with too much spare time to overanalyze, find non-existent flaws, and trash talk the effect as a result. The comment about other people making crappy videos of an effect was only an "icing on the cake" thing.

I have yet to see a single case of a web demo where the conversation did not deteriorate into unfounded pronouncements--from people who've never seen the effect in person, let alone who haven't learned the actual method--on why the effect is a horrible effect that nobody should purchase. Not a single one. And in some cases, these were very well done clips done by the creator.

I just don't think it's a good idea, and for the time being will not do a demo of any of my effects. It's way too much work to do a good demo, only to have it torn down by people who have no idea what they're talking about and talk like they're experts.

As for testimonials, I don't know of anybody getting paid for giving them. As noted above, a lot of people do give them to friends as a favor, often without having seen the product.

To me, that's stupid, if only because if the product stinks, you're damaging your own reputation. I will never endorse an effect I don't believe in fully, and I try to make sure that when friends and associates endorse one of my products, they really mean it.

I know a few performers who have admitted that, while they've given notable quotes to various books/effects, they've never read/seen what they were plugging. I also know of one very well known performer who, when asked for an endorsement, said that he loved the material, but would prefer not to be quoted on it simply because he had endorsed a number of other items recently and didn't want his name to become oversaturated and lose it's impact.

[Guest]

I own two books by Andy Leviss.
Would he like to add my comments in his advertising?

One moment please.

I have just received an answer by telepathy. I do wish he wouldn't use such bad language.He is getting more like Jerry Sadowitz every day.

[Guest]

Interesting thread indeed!

Let's start with some basics, covered by some other people - web cams are NOT studio quality equipment. Frame rate and resolution is no where NEAR that level. Hence, you miss stuff - often a LOT of stuff.

Second - web cams, like ANY video cams, are very difficult to distract or misdirect. Obvious, but true.

Attacking someone who has SEEN a product LIVE when you haven't is a slippery slope to try to stand on. Your information is incomplete from an "experiencing it" point of view. Theirs isn't.

This is akin to watching someone like David Blaine or Gazzo on TV and seeing them do street magic in person. The effect and impact are totally different.

Reviews...

Some of us DO rely on reviews, though, as they are often a guideline for making a purchase sight unseen.

Some of us have found reviewers whose ideas and views we mostly agree with and, therefore, rely to some extent on their judgements.

Sometimes, we will disagree with them on a specific effect, video, book or routine. Nature of the beast.

But without reviews, many of us would have to rely solely on the advertising copy that the trick is marketed with.

NOT a good idea, and more dangerous than listening to a reviewer who we agree with more often than not, IMPO.

The inventor has said the video demo sucks. Great! Cut him some slack and let him see if he can produce a better demo video.

Better yet, catch him in lecture, if possible, and see it for yourself. Barring that, check your local dealer and see if they can demo it well.

Barring that, you pays your money and takes your chances.

Bottom line - both sides have some veracity about them. Both sides also seem to miss parts as well.

I guess that's what makes a horserace.

Lee Darrow, C.Ht.
http://www.leedarrow.com

[Guest]

Here are some wonderful quotes (paraphrases of Moses Hadas' quotes regarding books) that are ready-made for most new tricks. They can be used by any reputable professional magician:

"I have seen your trick and much like it."

"Thank you for sending me a copy of your new effect - I'll waste no time learning it."

"This trick fills a much-needed gap."

0pus

[Ian Kendall]

Hello all,

I just lost the posting I had typed, so here's a short precis:

1. Using low frame rate as an excuse for a poor video is just that, a misinformed excuse. 15fps is the de facto standard for web video because there is no discernable difference between that at 24, 25 or 30fps. The clip was as clear as it would have been at 30fps, but if it had been encoded in something less than 24 bit colour the file size would have been smaller.

2. People have lost sight of the difference between fooling magicians and entertaining real people (with a very deliberate choice of words). The trick might not be earth shattering, but there are possibilities...

3. I'm sure I'm not the only person who found Lee Asher's comments ever so slightly patronising. Despite his lambasting of the lame folk who read product reviews to help their purchasing decisions he seems to have missed the point; we made up our minds about the trick _in spite of_ the reviews from the hallowed people. Since he has such a low opinion of people who use reviews and comments on products I trust he will see the hypocracy of printing endorsements for his output and submitting them for review and refuse to allow any of his future publications to be reviewed. Unless he has a healthy comtempt for his buying customers, that is.

Take care, Ian

'He's the master' - Lennart Green

P.S. A thunk; Get a dry marker and gimmick it like The Sharpie We Use (remember them?) and then show how the ink penetrates the glass by pushing the pen tip through the pane. Or not.

[Dave Shepherd]

Originally posted by Lee Darrow:

Attacking someone who has SEEN a product LIVE when you haven't is a slippery slope to try to stand on. Your information is incomplete from an "experiencing it" point of view. Theirs isn't.

Well, wait a second. We critiqued the routine based on the only information we had at the time, the video demo. Notice of this demo came to us from different sources, but mine was (in addition to Andy Hurst's post) the Hank Lee weekly newsletter, which listed Stained Glass at the "top" of its "Hotlist."

I bet if we'd seen it live first we'd have reacted differently, but we were only offered the video clip.

Since then, Adam has averred that he is not happy with the video, and Lee Asher has attacked us for being critical.

I don't think any of us original critics have actually attacked anyone who has seen the thing live. It was not clear to us originally that it had been seen live.

On the contrary, it is we who have been attacked.

Since then, Adam has responded with good humor on several occasions, and--lo and behold--we've begun thinking and talking about the possibilities of the effect.

As Harley said, "live by the video and die by the video."

[Guest]

Originally posted by Psychic:
You CAN misdirect the camera. This sacred tommyrot has always irritated me because it is a false axiom.

There is a human being behind the camera. You misdirect the human being not the camera. If there is more than one camera it simply means that there is more than one human being. You misdirect the extra human being or beings in the same way as you would misdirect them without the camera being there.

A camera, yes. A web cam, no. A web cam, of the type typically used for product demoes, is NOT operated by a person, it's fixed in place atop a monitor. It also does not have an adjustable focus. It's not made for this type of performance, and shouldn't be used for it.

Beyond that, even if it were operated by a real person and that person were misdirected, my primary objection to web demoes would still stand. If the camera moved to follow misdirection, magicians would appear all over the 'net saying, "He moved the camera, it's so obvious--if it were so good, why does he have to hide it off frame?!" The average magic-buying consumer does not think like the average real-world audience member when it comes to viewing stuff like this.

And I disagree that misdirection is equally effective on camera. When you direct the attention of a live person, they are not consciously aware of the fact that their attention has shifted from--for example--your hands to your face and back.

When it's done on camera, it becomes much more conscious an action, primarily because the viewer is passively watching and is not taking an active part in the shift of focus. They do not take the shift on their own unconsciously, they are forced to take it because that's what's shown to them. It's much more jarring and obvious than in real life.

Can it be done effectively? Sure, but not using the same techniques as in real life, and it requires the assistance of a director, cameraperson, and editor who knows what you need as the performer and knows how to make it happen effectively and subtly.

--A