The Lab: Decoy: Expose the Interpretation Between a Brief and an Image

Read the campaign story

Canon Australia introduced The Lab in November 2015, with Decoy as the first film in a six-part creative initiative. The One Show entry describes six photographers making portraits of the same man after receiving different invented accounts of his background. The creator listing corroborates the production team. The related Lab exercises form one family here, rather than six separately counted studies.

The published material frames the differences as evidence of perspective, but a staged advertising exercise is not a controlled scientific test. The accounts do not establish how other conditions were held constant or how the final material was selected. This study retains the creative premise without repeating sensitive fictional biographies, showing portraits or adopting viewing figures as evidence of learning or commercial effect. Its 2016 award record is not the launch year.

Editorial interpretation: a brief can direct attention before a maker begins working. The resulting output may feel like an observation even when it reflects assumptions supplied by someone else. Making that chain visible creates a useful conversation about interpretation, particularly in categories where the tool is often credited with the whole result. The campaign’s teaching opportunity lies in questioning the frame, not in declaring that one image reveals a person’s true character.

Editorial interpretation: the revealing moment also raises an ethical design question. A surprising demonstration need not rely on withholding material information from participants or attaching a stigmatising label to a real person. An adaptation can preserve the comparison through fictional objects and openly assigned scenarios. The important distinction is between exploring creative choices and claiming to diagnose bias, personality or competence from a small exercise.

Separate supplied assumptions from observed details

Before beginning a creative task, list what the brief says and what is actually visible or independently known. Mark interpretation as interpretation. This makes it easier to notice when an invented background becomes a factual claim in the final work. For a small team, compare two annotated drafts and ask which decisions came from the subject, the brief or the maker. The exercise should invite reflection rather than rank people as more truthful or perceptive. A useful output includes an explanation of the chosen frame and the alternatives it leaves out.

Use a fair comparison without overstating its meaning

If the goal is to explore the influence of a prompt, keep the available materials and practical task as similar as possible. Record differences that remain, such as prior experience or time spent, instead of hiding them behind a dramatic reveal. A classroom or workshop comparison can illustrate possibilities without estimating a population effect. Do not call it proof that a specific cause produced every difference. Ask what further evidence would be required for a stronger conclusion and preserve uncertainty when the exercise cannot distinguish between competing explanations.

Make the reflective step part of the experience

A striking contrast can attract attention without helping participants change how they approach a future task. Add a short discussion of what each person assumed, which choice followed and what they might test differently. Let people explain their reasoning without embarrassment or public judgement. Keep the subject’s dignity separate from the creative critique. If outputs are retained, obtain permission for the specific use rather than treating workshop participation as consent to publish. The most useful takeaway is a more deliberate process, not a collection of supposedly revealing images.

A small test for another brief

Proposed adaptation: an adult design group could receive the same original illustration of an unbranded everyday container, alongside two clearly fictional use scenarios. Everyone is told in advance that the scenarios are invented to explore framing. Ask for a short display caption and explanation, then compare decisions privately. Do not photograph people, invent personal histories or assess participant traits.

Measure whether participants can trace a design choice to an assumption and identify a question worth checking. Record the range of approaches without claiming a causal effect size, bias diagnosis or improvement in professional performance.

Stop if the exercise relies on deception, uses sensitive labels about people or turns a creative comparison into an evaluation of someone’s character.

• Use an owned illustration and identical task constraints.
• Label all scenario information as fictional.
• Discuss alternative interpretations without declaring a winner.