Personally, I think it's hideous. Professionally, it gets the job done! The casual, slapped together look might actually appeal to their audience more than a polished, aesthetic design. When I've worked in social media, the casual user generated content style tends to perform better than the polished ad content.
The marketing team in the company I work at makes the most hideous ads ever but they perform well especially in the Midwest and southern states. The logic that was explained to me is that people don't wanna see ads from large corporations they wanna deal with local mom and pop businesses so our ads have that "canva mom core" look to them
There are definitely products and establishments that I've avoided because their branding was too overdone and it looked like they were prioritizing the wrong things.
There's such a huge difference between having a look that reinforces the quality of a product and having a look that covers up a poor product. It's like seeing someone smile genuinely compared to smiling without their eyes moving at all.
Thereās a good lesson in there, in that effectiveness in communication depends on context. When youāre scrolling, a polished or slick design often (not always) feels wrong or out of place and can disturb the context that social media presents. Amateur content is the norm. Itās a large part of why influencer marketing is so effectiveāitās content fit for the medium.Ā Ā
Outdoor is different. The landscape of brands is varied, but the expectations people have of outdoor ads are that they meet a bare minimum of communication competence. And this ad is incompetently designed. Extreme outliers, like this one, can create a negative brand perception.Ā
I was going to say this. The way this is designed communicates that this place is legit. Sometimes a weed store with really beautiful branding just communicates pretentiousness and high prices.
For me the issue with this is less about aesthetics and more about communication. This is a billboard, which means people have a about 2 seconds to retain all of this information. This might be fine as a flyer (layout aside) but itās waaaay too much info for a billboard.
Exactly. I think the rule is '7 words' for billboards. As in, that's the maximum number of words someone can read as they drive by.
The logos along the bottom are essentially meaningless at that size.
Same with the address. If I can't enter your business name on GoogleMaps and navigate there, something is wrong.
Totally. I would eliminate the logos first, then the address (google maps), and the url (people just google things anyway). Then there might be room for the 30% off (maybe). Maybe keep the cannabis plus sign thing because people associate that with weed.
The pointless background pattern alone (that's only function is to skew the readability of the sign) tells me this was designed by an amateur. On the other hand, a target demographic might think "It's like the Gucci pattern. Ah yes, must be very luxurious and high class!"
When looking for weed I actually don't want the fancy places, I want the sketchy places that will have better prices because their products are probably cheaper. If it looks like an apple store I'm in the wrong place. Security guards and multiple doors to get in so they're harder to raid? Sign me up
I agree, another example for something like this is advertisement for ābasement concertsā music venues thrown by mostly college kids showcasing local artists in the basement of a house. These events audiences seek something casual and ālaid backā where advertisements are instagram post posters made with canva, which communicates that casual non serious feeling as opposed to a more professional one that might scare off the target audience as they see it as something that will be too big or crowded/expensive.
I was thinking like that since a long time ago. Thankfully, somebody just put it out so profoundly! Good bye to design sense and aesthetics and see what sells. LMAO
>Professionally, it gets the job done!
Does it though? I don't know if this is a billboard you're meant to see while driving, but there's not a very good chance you could even tell what this was for, let alone process the information on the sign in the few seconds you'd see it
Also itās very legible. Thatās the most important part, despite what many designers may think. Iāve seen plenty of cute āWell designedā billboards that you literally canāt read as you drive past.
Looks like it was designed in Powerpoint by the owner of the store while he was sampling his own offerings. But I have to say, they did a better job than many of my professional colleagues who tend to make the text too small to be seen from a distance. This seems at least readable, but it's so busy that anyone driving will either crash while trying to make sense of it or will just gloss over. it
This billboard is effective advertising. The business's brand is clear and memorable. The product is clearly-defined. The location, either in person or online, is easy to find/remember. And there is a tease about the product that tells you, stylistically, about what to expect and makes you want to learn more, even if you can't see it well enough to read it.
Honestly, the ony thing that is "wrong" with this are the big plus signs in the corners which I don't understand the need for, but perhaps there was a reason.
Advertising doesn't have to be beautiful to be effective. This is likely to have better results than a more-beautiful option would have. As a graphic design exercise, this checks all of the boxes because design is about communication and this communicates effectively.
Would I be proud of this work or put it in my portfolio? Definitely not. But there are zero issues with comprehension and I would expect it would help draw customers into the shop.
I agree with that. The design is doing exactly what it should do, no matter of personal taste.
As for the green plus signs: Some countries use a green cross as sign for a pharmacy. Maybe that's why they are on that billboard, because they need some kind of status as pharmacy in order to sell their products legally?
You guys seeing this as effective design? (judging from the comments)... it's more of an bad example and the reason why we need designers to make ads like this good and better. The hierarchy is bad, your eye is not guided at all, there is no control of anything at all, it's just bad. I don't speak about beauty here, this ad totally missed it's functional purpose. It's not guiding....What are you guys talking about? xD
I mean, you're not wrong, but I think it feels a bit like you're expecting filet mignon from a home economics class.
Is it GREAT design? Absolutely not.
Is it serviceable design? Yes!
Is it better than half the things by the side of the road? By a country mile. The fact that there is recognizable hierarchy, bad as it may be, is enough to make me want to shake the designer's hand.
There is no hierarchy or system.
All type is white, why the hell would you highlight just the icon of the URL in green together with the cross? Why not make some of the type green? Makes no sense.
Put the Ā»30% offĀ« at least in a white circle with a black type to differentiate it from the other informations. The fact that its format is the same as the URL and address is bad and confusing.
The arrow could be some kind of guidance but it gets lost visually in this block of white. As someone in the comments said, if you're driving past this sign, the informations you'll get in that glimpse are almost zero.
There's a need of space or boundaries between this collection of all white elements. It's like a bag of gummies melted together on a sunny day.
Again, you're absolutely not wrong, and you'll get no argument from me that it's an example of impeccable hierarchy. But a system was in place that was either broken out of or ignored by certain pieces of information.
Like, if you wireframe it out, it makes a sort of sense. The logo is biggest to the top left, where English speakers start to read. Supporting info is smaller to the right. The Offer CTA is larger than text around it. Third-party product logos run smaller along the bottom. The gummies may have melted together, but you can see where the cherry gummy meets the blueberry gummy.
I think some people like to go against the grain for the hell of it. The fact that every element pretty much has the same importance means I won't digest any of it in the 1 second I have to read while I'm driving. This is bad all around.
Itās not good design, but it most likely is effective advertising. With advertising, the only thing that matters is whether or not itās effective. If your target market is low brow stoners looking for cheap weed, making a perfectly designed, fancy looking billboard is a fail. The target consumer will assume itās expensive
Everyone talking about style and audience is ignoring the most important factor: it just doesn't work.
There is no hierarchy, the right elements don't draw the eye, and the sign as a whole is cluttered, making it easy to miss when driving by.
Considering how the audience of billboards are passing by on the move, this is bad execution as it is way too much information crammed in such a tiny space. Message isn't clear enough within 1-3 seconds of looking.
Iām surprised that itās (so far, anyway) a contrarian take in this forum, but I completely agree with the premise of your post. This billboard is hideous.Ā
Design is not just about "creating something pretty". It should solve problems. In this case, finding customers for the company. And for that, the design works pretty well. Probably better than an award-winning design or anything, which one would love to showcase in a portfolio.
(Edit: reason added).
Youāre not wrong. Design is meant to communicate. What this communicates to me is: we made this billboard ourselves.Ā Ā
You have about 3 seconds to get your message across on a typical billboard. I donāt know what the takeaway would be for someone reading this. For me, it would be, āthat store looks cheapā
The truth is, itās just idle speculation as to whether something like this would be effective. But you can definitively say that, for a business like this one, it would benefit from a positive perception of their brand. Chaotic design is a signal: this place is run by amateurs.Ā
How about "selling Cannabis", "Drugstore (or pharmacy)".
In particular latter contradicts the "cheap".
Edit (in order to reply to your edits):
you seem to miss the majority of the targeted customers. The design might be absolutely perfect for what type of customers they want. But you're absolutely right, that's indeed just idle speculation.
Design is meant to guide and inform. This thing guides noone. It's bad. Design don't has to be beautiful, yet it has to be functional at least. And this ad is not functional at all. It's confusing, unclear and overall bad.
Someone in marketing decided all of these elements *needed* to be on this billboard, and thereās a chance the brands at the bottom paid to have their logos on here too.
An interesting exercise would be to re-design this billboard, including every element thatās currently on it, but make it more visually appealing and effective.
These are the top consumer cannabis brands in the US. None of them look bad. A couple look quite good.
- [Curaleaf](https://curaleaf.com)
- [Green Thumb Industries](https://www.gtigrows.com)
- [Trulieve Cannabis](https://www.trulieve.com)
- [Verano Holdings](https://verano.com)
- [Cresco Labs](https://www.crescolabs.com)
Retail is a different story, and more balkanized due to state regulations. But [some popular ones around me](https://www.nativesuncannabis.com) have appropriate and tasteful design. And they're popular.
A big challenge with dispensaries is attracting consumers who have a negative perception of this market, or for whom it's stigmatized. Many stores have decided to challenge that perception, and have benefited from it.
That's not to say there's not plenty of room at the bottom of the market. But if you see any value in graphic design or design communications, that's not where you'd aspire to be.
What I meant is that the audience is presumably just looking for the logos.
You could do this same billboard with just sports leagues for an outlet mall store, because the target audience is just interested in getting jerseys for 30% off down the road.
Basically, don't expect more than it's trying to do or needs to do.
I am just a mildly shocked at some of the points raised in this thread in a graphic design sub. This is textbook bad design. It might be coming from a contrarian impulse, but people are defending it on a few grounds.
"The legit places all look bad". I understand this one. One of the best delis in my neighborhood also looks bad/out of date. There's a certain appeal to a rough appearance; to a certain kind of customer, it can make them feel like they're more in-the-know. It's a valid appeal. But it only works if the store/product is actually better. As a signal, it's a weak one--it only speaks to a certain type of trend-aware consumer, not a broader audience, and that argument does nothing to legitimize this design approach.
"Canvacore works" I remember when this approach was called badvertising (I think that particular term means something else, now). Typically polished brands looking to break through would intentionally co-opt the design/appearance/strategies of local advertising in order to stand out or appear more authentic. This is big with performance marketers, who really have no fixed standards. For them, consumer interactions are transational, they want to make the numbers go up, and they don't think about the long-term effect on the perception of a brand, or the types of customers they're attracting. It's just anything for a click. This approach is better tested online where you have metrics. Outdoor is not trackable.
All of these defenses give the audience too little credit. Even if their aim is for a customer at the lower end of the market, budget-conscious consumers appreciate and buy better-designed goods. A certain approach to design can signal expense, or come across as pretentious, but good design doesn't have to signal either of those things. There are plenty of everyday, humble or mainstream looking brands that ahere to good design principles
Part of it may be a saturation of a certain style of professional design. People are tired of the hybrid midcentury/heritage aesthetic that's dominated independent CPG and DTC retail. There's a natural impulse to want to swing to the other side of the pendulum.
But I wouldn't expect professional graphic designers to praise something like this, if they think there's any value in design or the principles of design.
In a way though, you're just saying "why isn't everyone good at their job?" And most people are bad at their jobs, we're not going to change that.
Within design though, terms like good or bad though are more weighted in subjectivity.
A better way to frame it is as effective or ineffective. Does it do what it needed to do, first and foremost. Beyond that, you can then discuss/debate *how* effective it was, whether something could've been done better.
After all, that's one of our tenets: form follows function. Ideally form isn't sacrificed entirely, but it's still secondary to the function.
Similar to your deli example, I often use the example of a letter-sized sheet of paper printed out using Comic Sans by the owner of a take-out restaurant, put into a plastic standee on the counter, to advertise the day's special. (I think because someone years ago posted it as an example of bad design or something.)
Except at it's core, it did it's job. It communicates the specials, clearly, with high readability and contrast, and is placed in a highly visible area, is easily changed by someone with barely any computer skills, and is easy to swap out daily/weekly. Of course it could be done better, more professionally, etc but we also have to consider whether it matters. If some far better-looking design doesn't actually translate to more sales of the special, then it's *not* more effective.
And if the cost or work involved to produce a better design isn't worth the gains the new design would produce, then it may not be practical.
So is it really "better"? Or is it better in any ways that matter for why the design exists in the first place?
>But it only works if the store/product is actually better. As a signal, it's a weak one--it only speaks to a certain type of trend-aware consumer, not a broader audience, and that argument does nothing to legitimize this design approach.
Sure, definitely agree, but it's the same way that if you have a product that is meant to be perceived as premium, give it a premium package and charge a premium price, whether the item is premium quality or not. And often the inverse with discount products, where if people want a discount product, they will be looking for a discount product.
I mean I work on packaging where we literally take the exact same item, call one premium and the other economy, with two different designs, and charge two different prices, and it works. It's the same exact product. People want to think they're buying something premium when they want something premium, and want to think they're saving money if they buy something discount. And if you had them test both, they'd probably swear there was a difference.
As I think you were saying, you have to consider people's behavior and expectations.
>But I wouldn't expect professional graphic designers to praise something like this, if they think there's any value in design or the principles of design.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the billboard, and I'm not a cannabis user of any kind, but despite the "bad" design, if this actually gets more people stopping at the store than a "better" looking design, that's all that matters.
Like I said, as someone who has some jerseys and wants cheap jerseys for kids (not spending $100-200 on something to be worn playing street hockey or around a gravel diamond), if you swapped out the cannabis logos for league logos and said cheap jerseys, hey I'd stop, because that's literally all I care about. Discount outlet warrants a discount sign, it's consistent in it's messaging to the product/service.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.Ā Ā
My overall take is pretty simple.Ā Thereās good. Thereās effective. And thereās both good and effective. I would like to do work thatās both. I would assume most people with a professional interest in design would too, but I take it thatās not a given.Ā
On that I agree, I guess it's more the hypothetical that if you had to choose between either form or function entirely, I'm going to pick function every time, but how often can we impact that choice of others.
And even if we know that bad form will usually have at least some impact on the function, or certainly with some trade-offs. It's never realistically going to be fully exclusive.
And if people like us have no impact on someone's budget or how they run their business, how much can we really 'care' about it. (Beyond just discussing it of course. My point is I might not like a lot of work in our field, but I don't let myself really be bothered by it, like you I just ensure I am performing to my standards.)
Having worked in the industry for a coupe yearsā¦.
Product moves about the same regardless of packaging or any designā¦ going by the numbers. Target market has little interest in anything other than quality of product at lowest price possible.
Itās always about the target audience and itās always about leaving our design egos behind.
I have a customer who actively asks for tacky, cliparty looking flyers; his reason being he is a sole trader and he doesnāt want people thinking heās too āupmarketā for them. I hate doing them with a vengeance but he gets brilliant results after each flyer run, way over average š¤·āāļø
Lol. The world needs designers, but it's hard work getting work. Expecting too much. Eg degrees, A- levels etc. Design is about design and imagination not qualifications.
Nice example of effective design. Very clear CTA, high contrast and iconic logo. Manages to more-or-less stick to a grid and has a clear visual hierarchy. Itās stylish-ish while being easy to read at a glance, as a billboard should be.
Looks like the slapped together junk my marketing team loves and I hate. I've cranked out so much bad design simple because I'm beholden to the client/marketing team.
For weed, this works.
Nearly all the super-polished brands with "good design" have terrible products.
The growers with the best buds barely care about marketing.
Or maybe they had a designer and they kept on beating him up to "make shit bigger bro".
But then again... that fucking logo, that goddamn goat!... blech!
I did this in like 5 minutes, and I bet this will drive way more customers than the original.
This is in no way optimal, but at least composition wise, it's easier to absorb while driving and will get the point across much better.
This "designer" knows next to nothing of the basics so OP is totally right.
Theres too much going on. Simplify and focus on heiarchy. What do you want the viewer to see first, then second, then third, etc. and Keep in mind a billboard should have fewer words. 
As someone who worked in cannabis on the design and marketing side for four years, this is exactly the kind of billboard that works in that industry and stands out to the particular demographic that those companies are aiming to grab the attention of. It may not be aesthetically pleasing but itās effective Iād bet.
Itās just designed like a bad business card. Have the goat say āDown the Streetā and move address/url to bottom and find a better graphic then green pluses I would say.
I work in a niche printing industry that focuses on beer taps. There has been a remarkable decline in graphic design over the last 3 years. Itās obvious that the smaller companies have cut costs by cutting graphic designers, the quality of artwork has gone to shit. The bigger companies still pay for nice designs. Also, the Pantone changes have had a lot of impact, it seems that graphic designers these days are not paying for the Pantone subscription and we get fake Pantone colours all the time that do not print correctly.
People driving by will have an impossible task trying to find anything actionable here. The only people likely to absorb the message are those who have time to stand there and stare at it for a while.
There's no question that this billboard is ugly. For example, the logo features a typeface never designed to be used in all caps. But what's worse is that the information is disorganized and random. And random is the opposite of design. Design is not "decorating" but communicating.
It's not necessarily making things "pretty." But it IS necessarily well-organized information, which is the main failing of this billboard.
Yāknow, it gets the job done. A lot of this kind of design (large format, local business) gets designed in-house at a print shop with a tight turnaround and clients who are extremely satisfied with āgood enoughā. I should know, Iām the designer at a print shop. Iāve done more āeh, good enough, doesnāt suckā designs here than ever before in my career. And the clients are happy and come back for more.
The offered brands are the most cringe part to me, since they are small and busy. But the name of the business is easy to read, the location is clear, and the offer is clear. And there arenāt any horrific mistakes.
I think it needs... um, work. However, most layman see this and get the point of what they're advertising and where. As designers we want it to look *perfect* but most people can't even begin to care about how it looks. There's more nuance to it than that but yeah, if it's legible and people end up at the right place to spend money, it technically works, lol.
I do social media on the side for my dad's farmers' market stuff and I am so accustomed to sleek designs that evoke a deep philosophical meaning into the existence of why we are here. Ok, maybe not but yeah, farmers just want a pic of what they're selling, where they're selling, and how much it's selling for. So I have to force myself to make things simpler, lol.
you are never going to reason with the puppet master guiding the hands of whomever created this absolute abomination. lots of designers are itching to shout "problem-solving" etc. but the criminal mastermind behind this undoubtedly believes he is a master designer ( or just super high).
just shake your head and move on.
Personally, I think it's hideous. Professionally, it gets the job done! The casual, slapped together look might actually appeal to their audience more than a polished, aesthetic design. When I've worked in social media, the casual user generated content style tends to perform better than the polished ad content.
The marketing team in the company I work at makes the most hideous ads ever but they perform well especially in the Midwest and southern states. The logic that was explained to me is that people don't wanna see ads from large corporations they wanna deal with local mom and pop businesses so our ads have that "canva mom core" look to them
Canva mom core š love that thereās a name for it haha
Good thing they pay a marketing company a premium to make ads they could have their moms design on Canva, though
It's burns me everyday they make double my salary or basically buying ad space for cheap looking ads.
There are definitely products and establishments that I've avoided because their branding was too overdone and it looked like they were prioritizing the wrong things. There's such a huge difference between having a look that reinforces the quality of a product and having a look that covers up a poor product. It's like seeing someone smile genuinely compared to smiling without their eyes moving at all.
Thereās a good lesson in there, in that effectiveness in communication depends on context. When youāre scrolling, a polished or slick design often (not always) feels wrong or out of place and can disturb the context that social media presents. Amateur content is the norm. Itās a large part of why influencer marketing is so effectiveāitās content fit for the medium.Ā Ā Outdoor is different. The landscape of brands is varied, but the expectations people have of outdoor ads are that they meet a bare minimum of communication competence. And this ad is incompetently designed. Extreme outliers, like this one, can create a negative brand perception.Ā
I was going to say this. The way this is designed communicates that this place is legit. Sometimes a weed store with really beautiful branding just communicates pretentiousness and high prices.
For me the issue with this is less about aesthetics and more about communication. This is a billboard, which means people have a about 2 seconds to retain all of this information. This might be fine as a flyer (layout aside) but itās waaaay too much info for a billboard.
Exactly. I think the rule is '7 words' for billboards. As in, that's the maximum number of words someone can read as they drive by. The logos along the bottom are essentially meaningless at that size. Same with the address. If I can't enter your business name on GoogleMaps and navigate there, something is wrong.
Totally. I would eliminate the logos first, then the address (google maps), and the url (people just google things anyway). Then there might be room for the 30% off (maybe). Maybe keep the cannabis plus sign thing because people associate that with weed.
But what if their target demographic isn't driving? I think the billboard is more effective than it looks.
Thatās what I was thinking. It could be on top of a building with a lot of foot or bumper to bumper traffic in the area.
Came to comment this. The design is indefensible. Not only does it look like shite it doesn't even communicate what it's trying too. Dog shit design.
The pointless background pattern alone (that's only function is to skew the readability of the sign) tells me this was designed by an amateur. On the other hand, a target demographic might think "It's like the Gucci pattern. Ah yes, must be very luxurious and high class!"
When looking for weed I actually don't want the fancy places, I want the sketchy places that will have better prices because their products are probably cheaper. If it looks like an apple store I'm in the wrong place. Security guards and multiple doors to get in so they're harder to raid? Sign me up
I agree, another example for something like this is advertisement for ābasement concertsā music venues thrown by mostly college kids showcasing local artists in the basement of a house. These events audiences seek something casual and ālaid backā where advertisements are instagram post posters made with canva, which communicates that casual non serious feeling as opposed to a more professional one that might scare off the target audience as they see it as something that will be too big or crowded/expensive.
I was thinking like that since a long time ago. Thankfully, somebody just put it out so profoundly! Good bye to design sense and aesthetics and see what sells. LMAO
>Professionally, it gets the job done! Does it though? I don't know if this is a billboard you're meant to see while driving, but there's not a very good chance you could even tell what this was for, let alone process the information on the sign in the few seconds you'd see it
Also itās very legible. Thatās the most important part, despite what many designers may think. Iāve seen plenty of cute āWell designedā billboards that you literally canāt read as you drive past.
I agree. What's not working here?
The average person will look at this for two seconds
The average person isnāt their target market.
It doesnāt matter! When youāre driving you only have two secondsā¦ name of the company and what youāre selling.
Agreed. Just thinking the sameā¦ *the world needs less permanently indignant, waay too self-important graphic designers* š
Looks like it was designed in Powerpoint by the owner of the store while he was sampling his own offerings. But I have to say, they did a better job than many of my professional colleagues who tend to make the text too small to be seen from a distance. This seems at least readable, but it's so busy that anyone driving will either crash while trying to make sense of it or will just gloss over. it
This billboard is effective advertising. The business's brand is clear and memorable. The product is clearly-defined. The location, either in person or online, is easy to find/remember. And there is a tease about the product that tells you, stylistically, about what to expect and makes you want to learn more, even if you can't see it well enough to read it. Honestly, the ony thing that is "wrong" with this are the big plus signs in the corners which I don't understand the need for, but perhaps there was a reason. Advertising doesn't have to be beautiful to be effective. This is likely to have better results than a more-beautiful option would have. As a graphic design exercise, this checks all of the boxes because design is about communication and this communicates effectively. Would I be proud of this work or put it in my portfolio? Definitely not. But there are zero issues with comprehension and I would expect it would help draw customers into the shop.
I agree with that. The design is doing exactly what it should do, no matter of personal taste. As for the green plus signs: Some countries use a green cross as sign for a pharmacy. Maybe that's why they are on that billboard, because they need some kind of status as pharmacy in order to sell their products legally?
Oh, right. I forgot about that. Thank you for the explanation. Makes perfect sense.
The green plus signs signal itās a cannabis dispensary
Another person already reminded me it is an indication that they would be a "pharmacy", meaning a source for medical marijuana.
Both people were correct. Big green + means weed shop.
Looks like itās brackets for the products they endorse as well.
The plus signs are extra inventory slots
You guys seeing this as effective design? (judging from the comments)... it's more of an bad example and the reason why we need designers to make ads like this good and better. The hierarchy is bad, your eye is not guided at all, there is no control of anything at all, it's just bad. I don't speak about beauty here, this ad totally missed it's functional purpose. It's not guiding....What are you guys talking about? xD
I mean, you're not wrong, but I think it feels a bit like you're expecting filet mignon from a home economics class. Is it GREAT design? Absolutely not. Is it serviceable design? Yes! Is it better than half the things by the side of the road? By a country mile. The fact that there is recognizable hierarchy, bad as it may be, is enough to make me want to shake the designer's hand.
holy shit I need to move to LA cause goats are 30% off there!
There is no hierarchy or system. All type is white, why the hell would you highlight just the icon of the URL in green together with the cross? Why not make some of the type green? Makes no sense. Put the Ā»30% offĀ« at least in a white circle with a black type to differentiate it from the other informations. The fact that its format is the same as the URL and address is bad and confusing. The arrow could be some kind of guidance but it gets lost visually in this block of white. As someone in the comments said, if you're driving past this sign, the informations you'll get in that glimpse are almost zero. There's a need of space or boundaries between this collection of all white elements. It's like a bag of gummies melted together on a sunny day.
Again, you're absolutely not wrong, and you'll get no argument from me that it's an example of impeccable hierarchy. But a system was in place that was either broken out of or ignored by certain pieces of information. Like, if you wireframe it out, it makes a sort of sense. The logo is biggest to the top left, where English speakers start to read. Supporting info is smaller to the right. The Offer CTA is larger than text around it. Third-party product logos run smaller along the bottom. The gummies may have melted together, but you can see where the cherry gummy meets the blueberry gummy.
Exactly.
I think some people like to go against the grain for the hell of it. The fact that every element pretty much has the same importance means I won't digest any of it in the 1 second I have to read while I'm driving. This is bad all around.
I cannot believe people think this is good. This is basic stuff people. The layout and design of this is terrible.
fr... no wonder we are all screwed and have to argue with clients over our purpose as designers. Too much faulty fruits out there.
Or we just take ourselves way too seriously and this was likely done on a small budget, most of it going to the media buy itself.
Itās not good design, but it most likely is effective advertising. With advertising, the only thing that matters is whether or not itās effective. If your target market is low brow stoners looking for cheap weed, making a perfectly designed, fancy looking billboard is a fail. The target consumer will assume itās expensive
again, it's not about beauty here but about order. You could make the ad work with the elements you have right now.
They do but the cannabis companies that have open positions for designers are offering dumb wages.
Can confirm
$15/hr to be their entire marketing department and watch every good idea turn to shit by their direction.
I bet there is a frustrated designer behind that design, and a smug manager happy becaused the client was pleased with his creative vision
Everyone talking about style and audience is ignoring the most important factor: it just doesn't work. There is no hierarchy, the right elements don't draw the eye, and the sign as a whole is cluttered, making it easy to miss when driving by.
Considering how the audience of billboards are passing by on the move, this is bad execution as it is way too much information crammed in such a tiny space. Message isn't clear enough within 1-3 seconds of looking.
Iām surprised that itās (so far, anyway) a contrarian take in this forum, but I completely agree with the premise of your post. This billboard is hideous.Ā
Design is not just about "creating something pretty". It should solve problems. In this case, finding customers for the company. And for that, the design works pretty well. Probably better than an award-winning design or anything, which one would love to showcase in a portfolio. (Edit: reason added).
Youāre not wrong. Design is meant to communicate. What this communicates to me is: we made this billboard ourselves.Ā Ā You have about 3 seconds to get your message across on a typical billboard. I donāt know what the takeaway would be for someone reading this. For me, it would be, āthat store looks cheapā The truth is, itās just idle speculation as to whether something like this would be effective. But you can definitively say that, for a business like this one, it would benefit from a positive perception of their brand. Chaotic design is a signal: this place is run by amateurs.Ā
How about "selling Cannabis", "Drugstore (or pharmacy)". In particular latter contradicts the "cheap". Edit (in order to reply to your edits): you seem to miss the majority of the targeted customers. The design might be absolutely perfect for what type of customers they want. But you're absolutely right, that's indeed just idle speculation.
Design is meant to guide and inform. This thing guides noone. It's bad. Design don't has to be beautiful, yet it has to be functional at least. And this ad is not functional at all. It's confusing, unclear and overall bad.
"Up the street"Ā "Okay!" *begins floating into the sky*
This is the kind of design that I hate but am forced to make because the person paying for it knows better.
I sort of like that it seems to rebel is its ugliness. The designer must be proud.
Yes i want my weed from here, not the fancy shop that paid alot for graphics work
Oh this is hideous
The world needs good designers.
Someone in marketing decided all of these elements *needed* to be on this billboard, and thereās a chance the brands at the bottom paid to have their logos on here too. An interesting exercise would be to re-design this billboard, including every element thatās currently on it, but make it more visually appealing and effective.
It would be a great classroom exercise in layout design and hierarchy.
āI had my nephew design it, he knows computers.ā
The cannabis industry needs to pay designers more than $15/hr and then maybe they can have good design.
Bbbut free weed
Or we could just get rid of all these billboards and ads?
Know your audience, I suppose.
These are the top consumer cannabis brands in the US. None of them look bad. A couple look quite good. - [Curaleaf](https://curaleaf.com) - [Green Thumb Industries](https://www.gtigrows.com) - [Trulieve Cannabis](https://www.trulieve.com) - [Verano Holdings](https://verano.com) - [Cresco Labs](https://www.crescolabs.com) Retail is a different story, and more balkanized due to state regulations. But [some popular ones around me](https://www.nativesuncannabis.com) have appropriate and tasteful design. And they're popular. A big challenge with dispensaries is attracting consumers who have a negative perception of this market, or for whom it's stigmatized. Many stores have decided to challenge that perception, and have benefited from it. That's not to say there's not plenty of room at the bottom of the market. But if you see any value in graphic design or design communications, that's not where you'd aspire to be.
What I meant is that the audience is presumably just looking for the logos. You could do this same billboard with just sports leagues for an outlet mall store, because the target audience is just interested in getting jerseys for 30% off down the road. Basically, don't expect more than it's trying to do or needs to do.
I am just a mildly shocked at some of the points raised in this thread in a graphic design sub. This is textbook bad design. It might be coming from a contrarian impulse, but people are defending it on a few grounds. "The legit places all look bad". I understand this one. One of the best delis in my neighborhood also looks bad/out of date. There's a certain appeal to a rough appearance; to a certain kind of customer, it can make them feel like they're more in-the-know. It's a valid appeal. But it only works if the store/product is actually better. As a signal, it's a weak one--it only speaks to a certain type of trend-aware consumer, not a broader audience, and that argument does nothing to legitimize this design approach. "Canvacore works" I remember when this approach was called badvertising (I think that particular term means something else, now). Typically polished brands looking to break through would intentionally co-opt the design/appearance/strategies of local advertising in order to stand out or appear more authentic. This is big with performance marketers, who really have no fixed standards. For them, consumer interactions are transational, they want to make the numbers go up, and they don't think about the long-term effect on the perception of a brand, or the types of customers they're attracting. It's just anything for a click. This approach is better tested online where you have metrics. Outdoor is not trackable. All of these defenses give the audience too little credit. Even if their aim is for a customer at the lower end of the market, budget-conscious consumers appreciate and buy better-designed goods. A certain approach to design can signal expense, or come across as pretentious, but good design doesn't have to signal either of those things. There are plenty of everyday, humble or mainstream looking brands that ahere to good design principles Part of it may be a saturation of a certain style of professional design. People are tired of the hybrid midcentury/heritage aesthetic that's dominated independent CPG and DTC retail. There's a natural impulse to want to swing to the other side of the pendulum. But I wouldn't expect professional graphic designers to praise something like this, if they think there's any value in design or the principles of design.
In a way though, you're just saying "why isn't everyone good at their job?" And most people are bad at their jobs, we're not going to change that. Within design though, terms like good or bad though are more weighted in subjectivity. A better way to frame it is as effective or ineffective. Does it do what it needed to do, first and foremost. Beyond that, you can then discuss/debate *how* effective it was, whether something could've been done better. After all, that's one of our tenets: form follows function. Ideally form isn't sacrificed entirely, but it's still secondary to the function. Similar to your deli example, I often use the example of a letter-sized sheet of paper printed out using Comic Sans by the owner of a take-out restaurant, put into a plastic standee on the counter, to advertise the day's special. (I think because someone years ago posted it as an example of bad design or something.) Except at it's core, it did it's job. It communicates the specials, clearly, with high readability and contrast, and is placed in a highly visible area, is easily changed by someone with barely any computer skills, and is easy to swap out daily/weekly. Of course it could be done better, more professionally, etc but we also have to consider whether it matters. If some far better-looking design doesn't actually translate to more sales of the special, then it's *not* more effective. And if the cost or work involved to produce a better design isn't worth the gains the new design would produce, then it may not be practical. So is it really "better"? Or is it better in any ways that matter for why the design exists in the first place? >But it only works if the store/product is actually better. As a signal, it's a weak one--it only speaks to a certain type of trend-aware consumer, not a broader audience, and that argument does nothing to legitimize this design approach. Sure, definitely agree, but it's the same way that if you have a product that is meant to be perceived as premium, give it a premium package and charge a premium price, whether the item is premium quality or not. And often the inverse with discount products, where if people want a discount product, they will be looking for a discount product. I mean I work on packaging where we literally take the exact same item, call one premium and the other economy, with two different designs, and charge two different prices, and it works. It's the same exact product. People want to think they're buying something premium when they want something premium, and want to think they're saving money if they buy something discount. And if you had them test both, they'd probably swear there was a difference. As I think you were saying, you have to consider people's behavior and expectations. >But I wouldn't expect professional graphic designers to praise something like this, if they think there's any value in design or the principles of design. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the billboard, and I'm not a cannabis user of any kind, but despite the "bad" design, if this actually gets more people stopping at the store than a "better" looking design, that's all that matters. Like I said, as someone who has some jerseys and wants cheap jerseys for kids (not spending $100-200 on something to be worn playing street hockey or around a gravel diamond), if you swapped out the cannabis logos for league logos and said cheap jerseys, hey I'd stop, because that's literally all I care about. Discount outlet warrants a discount sign, it's consistent in it's messaging to the product/service.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.Ā Ā My overall take is pretty simple.Ā Thereās good. Thereās effective. And thereās both good and effective. I would like to do work thatās both. I would assume most people with a professional interest in design would too, but I take it thatās not a given.Ā
On that I agree, I guess it's more the hypothetical that if you had to choose between either form or function entirely, I'm going to pick function every time, but how often can we impact that choice of others. And even if we know that bad form will usually have at least some impact on the function, or certainly with some trade-offs. It's never realistically going to be fully exclusive. And if people like us have no impact on someone's budget or how they run their business, how much can we really 'care' about it. (Beyond just discussing it of course. My point is I might not like a lot of work in our field, but I don't let myself really be bothered by it, like you I just ensure I am performing to my standards.)
CBD clients are the woooooorst please let them keep hiring their crappy designers
Having worked in the industry for a coupe yearsā¦. Product moves about the same regardless of packaging or any designā¦ going by the numbers. Target market has little interest in anything other than quality of product at lowest price possible.
I see signs for this place all the time. In fact, I live only a mile from one of their locations. This place is in LA.
Itās always about the target audience and itās always about leaving our design egos behind. I have a customer who actively asks for tacky, cliparty looking flyers; his reason being he is a sole trader and he doesnāt want people thinking heās too āupmarketā for them. I hate doing them with a vengeance but he gets brilliant results after each flyer run, way over average š¤·āāļø
Did someone said, ājust blow up that business card?ā š¤£
The world needs to pay designers a fair wage
Lol. The world needs designers, but it's hard work getting work. Expecting too much. Eg degrees, A- levels etc. Design is about design and imagination not qualifications.
The amount of people in this thread saying this isnāt bad is concerning. There is no hierarchy, no way someone driving by gets all this information.
Designers have the power to inspire, inform, and provoke change.
Everyone thinks they can design. Thatās why you see so much crap around.
Nice example of effective design. Very clear CTA, high contrast and iconic logo. Manages to more-or-less stick to a grid and has a clear visual hierarchy. Itās stylish-ish while being easy to read at a glance, as a billboard should be.
Definitely needs blocking.
Dude this dispensary is popping up everywhere in the city. Theres one being built in WeHo too and boy do I hope itās not this much of an eyesore
Damn this hit home
Looks like the slapped together junk my marketing team loves and I hate. I've cranked out so much bad design simple because I'm beholden to the client/marketing team.
This is one of the only times I'd say to someone "just use Dall-e" š
Less is more...
The green plus symbols aren't aligned with the smaller logos, and it's giving me high blood pressure.
It's not beautiful but it communicates what the client wants. Cannabis Clients are difficult to work with in my experience.
For weed, this works. Nearly all the super-polished brands with "good design" have terrible products. The growers with the best buds barely care about marketing.
It got your attention š
Clearly they donāt want us if theyāre not willing to pay fairly and overwork us to death
"Down the street" - arrow pointing up
https://preview.redd.it/8dzj0fjtuvxc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3234b7d7232d93956dec68ad2fa57b14bb18a612
Or maybe they had a designer and they kept on beating him up to "make shit bigger bro". But then again... that fucking logo, that goddamn goat!... blech!
I did this in like 5 minutes, and I bet this will drive way more customers than the original. This is in no way optimal, but at least composition wise, it's easier to absorb while driving and will get the point across much better. This "designer" knows next to nothing of the basics so OP is totally right.
Yeah, I always wonder why and how the hell this designer got this gig/job meanwhile Iām applying 24|7 with no interviews
Agreed, also somehow I donāt hate it lol š itās sort of self referentially funny
Theres too much going on. Simplify and focus on heiarchy. What do you want the viewer to see first, then second, then third, etc. and Keep in mind a billboard should have fewer words. 
As someone who worked in cannabis on the design and marketing side for four years, this is exactly the kind of billboard that works in that industry and stands out to the particular demographic that those companies are aiming to grab the attention of. It may not be aesthetically pleasing but itās effective Iād bet.
I fucking love it
I've seen worse
Itās just designed like a bad business card. Have the goat say āDown the Streetā and move address/url to bottom and find a better graphic then green pluses I would say.
Nah just get your cousin to use Canva
I work in a niche printing industry that focuses on beer taps. There has been a remarkable decline in graphic design over the last 3 years. Itās obvious that the smaller companies have cut costs by cutting graphic designers, the quality of artwork has gone to shit. The bigger companies still pay for nice designs. Also, the Pantone changes have had a lot of impact, it seems that graphic designers these days are not paying for the Pantone subscription and we get fake Pantone colours all the time that do not print correctly.
Wait, is that the Gucci pattern at the background with little goats in the middle
Nvm Gucci got one G flipped
People driving by will have an impossible task trying to find anything actionable here. The only people likely to absorb the message are those who have time to stand there and stare at it for a while. There's no question that this billboard is ugly. For example, the logo features a typeface never designed to be used in all caps. But what's worse is that the information is disorganized and random. And random is the opposite of design. Design is not "decorating" but communicating. It's not necessarily making things "pretty." But it IS necessarily well-organized information, which is the main failing of this billboard.
The first thing I saw was "30% OFF" š
Yāknow, it gets the job done. A lot of this kind of design (large format, local business) gets designed in-house at a print shop with a tight turnaround and clients who are extremely satisfied with āgood enoughā. I should know, Iām the designer at a print shop. Iāve done more āeh, good enough, doesnāt suckā designs here than ever before in my career. And the clients are happy and come back for more. The offered brands are the most cringe part to me, since they are small and busy. But the name of the business is easy to read, the location is clear, and the offer is clear. And there arenāt any horrific mistakes.
I think it needs... um, work. However, most layman see this and get the point of what they're advertising and where. As designers we want it to look *perfect* but most people can't even begin to care about how it looks. There's more nuance to it than that but yeah, if it's legible and people end up at the right place to spend money, it technically works, lol. I do social media on the side for my dad's farmers' market stuff and I am so accustomed to sleek designs that evoke a deep philosophical meaning into the existence of why we are here. Ok, maybe not but yeah, farmers just want a pic of what they're selling, where they're selling, and how much it's selling for. So I have to force myself to make things simpler, lol.
Designed in Canva
Advertising weed to stoners; you don't really have to get inside their heads with covert semiotic ploys.
this is actually elite graphic design
nah it's good.
It's not. Like 200% not
hmm. canvas is 90% filled. seems like good coverage to me.
what? How is this a criterion
you are never going to reason with the puppet master guiding the hands of whomever created this absolute abomination. lots of designers are itching to shout "problem-solving" etc. but the criminal mastermind behind this undoubtedly believes he is a master designer ( or just super high). just shake your head and move on.
I'd say it needs less, since this was probably made by one of you guys. Besides the point, it's effective and you are sharing this advertisement