A note on subliminal messages in graphic design
In the course of my surfing recently, I visited the Bush-Cheney '04 website to see the new ad featuring John McCain. But that's not the point of this post. The point is that while I was at georgewbush.com, I noticed that the site spends most of its visual energy on John Kerry. For example, on the right is a picture of John Kerry and John Edwards under the headline "John Kerry: The Raw Deal". Meanwhile, in the center of the page, just below a not entirely flattering picture of the President, there is a headline that reads "Campaign Memo: Expected Kerry Bounce", a button for the "Kerry Gas Tax Calculator" and the "John Kerry Travel Tracker", which features a take-off on the interstate highway signs that reads "Travels with John". Below that are two ads about John Kerry, both of them negative, with the headlines "Yakuza" and "Pessimism". Finally, in the left column, there is a link to something called the "Kerry Media Center."
Contrast this with johnkerry.com, which features a picture of Kerry and Edwards shaking hands, and never once mentions or shows pictures of President Bush. Meanwhile, the ads that are available on the website are promoted by positive headlines ("Investing in High Tech", "A Realistic Path in Iraq", "Fighting for American Jobs", etc.)
So who's going negative and striking a tone of pessimism? I submit that it's not John Kerry. In fact, on balance, I think the Bush site's obsession with Kerry is a good thing for Kerry: first, there's the whole Captain Ahab obsession-leads-to-ultimate-destruction thing; and second, any publicity is good publicity -- as Huey Long may (or may not) have said once, "Say anything you want about me as long as you spell my name right."
***
One other note on graphic design: it's a small point, but I was struck by the placement of the picture of President Bush at a lecturn at the top of his campaign website. Most graphic designers will tell you that when you picture a person in profile, he or she should be facing into the center of page, because we interpret this as more inclusive. This is because the eye tends to look for and follow a logical path when taking in visual images, and will therefore follow the "gaze" of the figure in profile. If that gaze directs the reader toward the center of the page, the reader is therefore being "drawn into" the page and will be included in the action on that page. On the other hand, if the gaze is off the page (either to the left or right), the reader will follow the gaze off the page, and therefore outside the action taking place on the page. We usually interpret this as cold or uninviting. (To see this phenomenon at work, look at almost any fashion magazine; chances are good that the model will be facing the camera or turned slightly toward the center of the page.)
Given this, I find it interesting (and perhaps unconsciously telling?)that the profile of President Bush is facing off the edge of the page, instead of the other way.
posted by Daniel at 7:20 AM
2 Comments:
Bush is looking left, but what his gaze falls upon is his name, and the name of the site. If we're going to assign Freudian style motives, maybe he's trying to psych the observer into focussing on his name (comes in handy in the voting booth, perhaps). As to the pessimism/optimism thing, I think you're mixing apples and oranges. Bush's site is much more devoted to criticism of Kerry than vice versa. But I think Bush's message in his criticisms is, "We've got a good thing going here, we're making progress on (insert issue) and here are some of Kerry's plans and how they'll derail that progress." Kerry's site has a bunch of sketches of plans to make things better, which presupposes that things are bad now and need fixing. 'Things are bad' implies pessimism. 'Things are good now and steadily getting even better' is optimism.
Regarding where Bush is looking, he could just as easily be staring at his name from the "B" end, instead of the "H" end -- same result, inclusive positioning. But that's a minor point.
As for the comparisons between the sites, I disagree that it's apples and oranges. The front page of the site (of any website, for that matter) ought to be on promoting the primary product, not tearing down the other guy's product. Consider a non-political example: Imagine that Burger King's website says in big print, "Our burgers are delicious and good for you, and won't cost you an arm and a leg." [Leave aside whether that's false advertising or not]. The McDonald's website says in big print "You should see what Burger King really puts in their burgers!" and "Their french fries will kill you." Now, McDonald's real message may be that "our burgers are the same they've always been and you've always loved them, so don't change" (a positive message), but their primary visual message is negative. Similarly, Burger King's real message might be that each McDonald's hamburger you eat is one more nail in your coffin (a negative message), but the primary visual message is positive.
The fact is, the Bush website focuses much more on why Kerry's bad than on why we ought to stay-the-course with Bush. Conversely, Kerry's website, by and large, focuses much more on why Kerry is good than on why Bush is bad. True, the secondary message is present on each website, but the tone of Bush's website is more negative than Kerry's. And so, even if Bush is pushing the optimistic point of view (things are good, stay the course), the presentation is pushing the macro message off the page. Maybe that's what Bush is looking for as he gazes off the left side of the site...
Post a Comment
<< Home