Multi-Ad Creator

in Mac Software edited January 2014
I was just wondering if any of you use this software? I have a client that uses it half the time and Quark the other half. I can't stand Multi-Ad and I have been pushing for them to do everything in Quark. Multi-Ad reminds me of PageMaker 2 but with less features. I only use it because I have no other choice. In fact all I do is open the files in Multi-Ad and then export them as EPS files and pull them into Quark. Otherwise the files won't go through our RIP.

I would love it if they used any version of Quark or InDesign instead. Heck I would even prefer PageMaker over Multi-Ad. I don't know anyone other than this particular client that uses Multi-Ad but I have been told that it is used by many newspapers. I just want to know why. They aren't using it because its cheap. I believe the Pro version is $750. They aren't using it because it has lots of great features either.

Any thoughts or opinions?


  • Reply 1 of 10
    pepsipepsi Posts: 55member
    Newspapers use it , at least mine does, because it has allows you to quickly build ads even if you don't have that much graphics experience.

    If you have ever tried to put an illustrator eps on a quark page and that person had one stray point say 6 inches outside the ad you would see what I mean. When multi-ad makes an eps it only grabs what is inside the ad size.

    It is more of a production tool than a design tool. However they have been getting better every year. there is a huge difference between v3.7 and v6.5.

    I guess in short it works great for newspapers that have a lot of volume. I could go on...but I won't.

    that being said, I'm not a huge fan of it either but it works. and we don't have any problem ripping the files.
  • Reply 2 of 10
    Yes, Multi-Ad does have a couple of really nice features and I can see what you mean about it being easier if you aren't design savvy. For me it lacks to much for me to use it. I do know too that they do have a service that targets newspapers that helps them put ads together in a shorter time.

    Mostly I was surprised by the fact that my customer supports both Quark and Multi-Ad in the same department. I often hear of people using both PageMaker and Quark. I can 't image supporting 2 applications that basically do the same thing. Most often I see people having both Illustrator and FreeHand (and they aren't using FreeHand for web designs).
  • Reply 3 of 10
    burningwheelburningwheel Posts: 1,827member
    i seem to recall using it once. didn't care for it
  • Reply 4 of 10
    pepsipepsi Posts: 55member
    as far as supporting both quark and multi-ad in the same department..

    that is nothing. If you really want to warp your brain try supporting..

    quark, pagemaker, indesign, multi-ad, illustrator and photoshop. We have to have all the programs because you never know what a customer may bring in.

    We have received ads created in just about every program imaginable. My personal favorite is a display ad with graphics, photos and text created in....Excel!! The customer didn't understand why we couldn't just pop it in the paper as is.

    My biggest pet peeve is people that email us jpgs....but first they embed the file in a word document....ugh.

    As far as using multi-ad for design work...its a lot cheaper than any of the ohers...(at least the desktop version is) So if you just want to get your feet wet, and you may work for a newspaper/magazine it would be a good place to start.
  • Reply 5 of 10
    zozo Posts: 3,117member

    Originally posted by pepsi

    My biggest pet peeve is people that email us jpgs....but first they embed the file in a word document....ugh.

    I'll second that... I just wanted to send virusses back to theose people.

    Luckily the rsolutions were generally low enough of the original that I could zoom 200% and just take a screenshot and use that...
  • Reply 6 of 10
    pepsipepsi Posts: 55member

    Originally posted by ZO

    I'll second that... I just wanted to send virusses back to theose people.

    Luckily the rsolutions were generally low enough of the original that I could zoom 200% and just take a screenshot and use that...

    or a copy to the clipboard...and a paste into a new photoshop document.

    That works pretty well as long as the photo is running in the newspaper real small...

    as far as sending viruses back to them...I'll do you one better. Email them back and ask for the jpg...just not embeded in a word document. It'll keep them scratching their heads for hours trying to figure out how to do it.
  • Reply 7 of 10
    Yeah, were I work we have every application know to man because yes customers do send us ads built in everything imaginable. We often receive ads in Word too and it sucks. Many, many people build their whole ad in PhotoShop and then they ask why the type is fuzzy. They don't understand the whole raster/vector concept.

    The 2 programs I hate is MicroSoft Publisher and AppleWorks. People seem to think that these are professional level applications which they are not. Sure they're great to put something together to print out on your desktop printer but they aren't good to use when you are sending something to a service provider or a printer.
  • Reply 8 of 10
    pepsipepsi Posts: 55member
    Microsoft Publisher The bane of my exsistence. I have almost stopped accepting them. I have been telling customers that either we will rebuild the ad....or we can scan what they bring us. ( always looks like crap )

    One trick i have been using, is to us the microsoft publisher imagesetter driver to write a postscript file of the publisher file. Then run it thru distiller. It gives a pdf that is more or less what the client wants.

    But you know as well as I, that if somebody is using publisher they aren't a graphic designer to begin chance are the ad/flyer whatever is going to look like crap.
  • Reply 9 of 10

    How many people do you run across everyday that "Design" stuff and send it to you but have no idea what they are doing? I also hate Correl Draw and that Canvas program ( I can't remember the name of the publisher Denba or something).

    Recently I had a customer (a large Bank here in the Midwest) who thought it was best to build all of their ads and brochures in Photoshop. I would think a bank could afford to hire a graphic designer who knew what they were doing or at least go to a design firm. Then they complained when the type "looked funny".

    I also hate it when people build ads in FreeHand. Why, when you use lots of images in your ad FreeHand takes forever to load them. I think it is always best to put things together in a layout program (Quark or InDesign) and build your artwork in PhotoShop and Illustrator (or FreeHand). So many people don't do this, it is amazing.
  • Reply 10 of 10
    pepsipepsi Posts: 55member
    I couldn't give you an exact number of customers that bring us stuff on a daily basis. We tend to get quite a bit. We have one that builds everything in Coreldraw, prints it out and has us scan it. (How many different fonts can you put in one ad anyways...)

    We're happy to do it...but geez it would look so much better if we built it ourselves, subject to the customers approval of course.

    We used to have a bank that built everything in publisher. They have since switched to Indesign, I like to think I had something to do with that.

    Word seems to be the most popular of formats that people bring in. What we usually do is take what they have, rebuild it so it looks much them a proof, and presto...they don't bring word files ever again.

    Of course ad layout it built into our advertising rates so it makes more sense for them to have us build it.
Sign In or Register to comment.