Imagine an ad for a portable lamp. A point of light on a blade of grass alternates with the lamp on a table. Later, someone picks up the lamp and carries it into a darker space. The intended idea is light that travels with you. But turn the lamp into a giant flying firefly and viewers might remember only the creature, or even assume the product is a children’s toy.
Both ideas could look beautiful without communicating the same thing. A visual metaphor in a product ad invites people to transfer a particular quality from a familiar subject to the product. An unexpected combination is a beginning; whether that association reaches the product determines what it communicates. All lamp scenarios below are hypothetical creative exercises, not completed projects or effectiveness tests.
Borrow a quality, not the entire object
“What does the product look like?” can produce a long list of reference images. “In what respect is it like that?” gets closer to an advertising idea.
A firefly might suggest a small light, night, lightness or movement. It might also suggest something brief, dim, insect-like or fantastical. If the lamp’s message is portability, moving light offers a relationship worth developing. If the message is illumination across a large space, a tiny glow could work against it. Creators cannot accept only the attractive associations and assume the others disappear.
Express the relationship in ordinary language first: which quality of this subject should help viewers understand which product benefit? That sentence need not appear in the finished ad. It should, however, help cinematography, art direction and post-production make compatible choices. “Freedom, the future and unlimited possibility” is usually too vague to determine what happens on screen.
A similar shape can establish a connection, but resemblance is not itself a benefit. A round lamp and the moon share a shape; that does not explain why the lamp suits reading at night. The moon might suggest gentle companionship, but it does not explain a clamp that attaches to a desk. An elegant comparison should not be asked to carry more information than it can.
The relationship also gives production a purpose. If the meaning depends on picking up and carrying light, a filmed action may be more direct than an elaborate transformation. If it depends on an impossible form, CG or compositing has a specific job. Choosing the relationship before the technique does not limit imagination.
Making people think is not the same as making meaning clear
The public abstract of Takeuchi and Wang’s 2022 paper, Designing Visual Metaphors in Advertisements, considers visual complexity, conceptual similarity, explicitness, verbal messages and need for cognition. Its fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis distinguishes configurations associated with greater elaboration from those associated with accurate comprehension.
This is not a single-variable rule that more copy is always better or complex imagery always fails. This article draws on the abstract, not a review of all study materials, and does not treat its findings as evidence of short-video campaign or sales uplift.
The creative implication is that requiring viewers to solve a puzzle is not automatically useful. If they arrive at the wrong product quality, more effort need not bring them closer to the intended meaning. Conversely, a small clue need not destroy poetry. It can indicate which relationship matters.
For the hypothetical lamp, once the connection between the two lights is established, “Take the light with you” points toward portability. “Company for every evening” points toward emotional companionship. Both are easy to understand, but select different interpretations of the same images. Copy should not be treated as an interchangeable decoration after the film is finished.
When specifications, operating conditions or a concrete function need explaining, metaphor can take a supporting role. A clear demonstration can communicate a fact while an imaginative image conveys a feeling. One shot does not have to do everything.
Video adds time, and the possibility of breaking the connection
A concept image presents its elements together. A film must decide what people know first and what they learn next. An idea that works on a presentation slide can fall apart when divided into shots: viewers see an insect, woodland and a lamp without a reason to connect them.
For the hypothetical moving-light idea, a glow could leave a blade of grass, its direction connecting to a hand lifting the lamp, before the sequence settles into a real use situation. The relationship depends not only on a matching transition but on an action that brings the idea back to the product. If the glow wanders throughout and the lamp appears only at the end, the result might feel like a nature film with a product sponsor.
Another approach begins with the actual lamp, briefly enters the imagined association, then returns to someone carrying it. That reduces uncertainty about what is being advertised while preserving curiosity about the expression. Product-first and metaphor-first are not universal winners; the choice depends on whether viewers need an introduction to the category.
Sound helps select an interpretation too. Insect wing noise would emphasize the creature, while a quiet ambience might retain only the sense of night. An exaggerated mechanical startup could shift attention toward technical performance. These are creative judgments to investigate, not guaranteed audience responses. Art direction, sound and editing should develop a shared connection rather than compete to add separate flourishes.
For a material-led way of creating associations, ONCE’s discussion of stop-motion product ads explores a related production approach. Material and movement are expressive means; they do not replace the choice of quality being transferred.
Let a rough version answer what people think it says
The first useful output need not be the most expensive image. Simple boards or a rough edit can show the relationship. Ask people who have not heard the creative explanation what they saw, how the product relates to the other subject, and what quality that suggests the product has.
Explaining the intended meaning before asking whether the idea is creative tests agreement with an explanation, not whether the image communicates. Keep interpretations that do not match the team’s intention. Someone reading “lightweight” as “fragile” may reveal exactly what needs attention. Small-scale feedback can expose interpretive paths; it cannot predict overall sales.
Revision need not mean discarding the entire idea. If the subject is unrecognizable, its form may need changing. If both subjects are recognized but the connection is unclear, a shared action or a verbal clue may be missing. If the connection is clear but transfers the wrong quality, reconsider the metaphor itself. More detail and greater image fidelity may not solve that last problem.
AI concept imagery can also serve as sketches of different relationships. Exploring moving light in one direction and quiet companionship in another may create a more useful discussion than generating increasingly ornate versions of the same idea. This is a creative recommendation, not a claim about any model’s capability or productivity. Whatever the tool, an impossible image cannot substitute for an account of what the real product can do.
For a product advertising concept, bring the core value, a recording of real use and existing references to ONCE’s brand and product video solutions. The image worth keeping may not be the one that resembles a firefly most closely. It is the relationship that makes clear why someone would want to take that lamp with them.
Sources checked October 14, 2026. The research discussion uses the public abstract of the cited 2022 paper, not all experimental materials. Scenes, copy and rough-review suggestions are creative exercises. The AI-generated cover is a concept illustration, not a real product or client project.
