I saw a few elections signs but none of them had a complete message to convey. All of them wanted me to do something but did not really make an effort to tell me why I should be doing it. Political candidates seem to be saying similar things. (Some are more unoriginal than others.)
Peter Choi wants us to vote for him, I’m not sure why.
Katherine Lee wants us to elect her. I’m not sure why should we be choosing her. The Smog Check sign, next to Katherine Lee’s, gives me a better reason to choose them, at least I know the price I’ll be paying.
And then there is Johnny Nalbadian, who seems to be unabashedly unoriginal.
As compared to politicians, interest groups seem to be a little better, at least they give some space to their cause/interest.
Stepping back and thinking about these election signs from the point of view of design principles that we’ve learnt, I’d say that all of them fail the “attractiveness bias” test. Even if a voter does not know anything about the candidate, a beautifully designed poster can never hurt.
But, it’s the ACLU posters that really stand out.Single minded headlines like “Dissent is patriotic,” “Fight ignorance not immigrants” and “There is no planet B,” use the principle of stickiness to their advantage. They are simple, carry an element of surprise, are specific and concrete, and trigger emotions among the passersby. These hand-made posters seem to communicate things more effectively than the printed sings from politicians.
To close this, I’d say the design of a poster, like any design, needs to view things from the audience point of view. Sure, politicians want us to remember their name, and choose them, but it’ll help them if they first thought about what voters want : )
You hit the nail on the head – maybe if all these politicians/their teams put more thought about their “users” – the people, the voters , these campaign banners and ads might look refreshingly different.