They say a picture is worth 1,000 words. But if you've watched a typical political ad, you know that's not really true, is it? At ~30 frames per second in a 30 second ad there are 900 images to work with. You'd better get some words into the memory of the audience for the value you're pouring into a thousand images. Remember, [[Humans Learn Visually]] and [[Emotion Motivates People]]. By our account, in most political ads, most of those 900 opportunities are wasted. Here are some image descriptions that only require a few words: - [[An Evolving Collection of Politicians Pointing at Jobs and Leadership| Three people standing awkwardly in a semi-circle, pointing at..jobs]] - A Candidate, in slow motion, pointing to what might be the bathroom, but what is otherwise supposed to be "leadership." There he is, pointing at leadership. We don't need to pull specific examples . You all know what we're talking about. It doesn't take a lot of descriptive language to have the cliche pop into your mind's eye. Cliche for so many reasons - mostly because these images don't say much other than "I'm running," or "if you don't like politicians, you won't like me," or "I'm not going to say anything particularly interesting, so tune out." Maybe as an industry we should stop trying to be so literal. However - a single strong image, properly crafted, can tell an entire story in a single frame. A young woman bursting with pride at her citizenship ceremony. ![[Luisa del Rosal.png]] A sick child's brave face as he's wheeled into surgery. ![[Brave Child.png]] A woman who's lost her son; a sister without a brother. ![[Terry Tondre Hardy & Brandy Pennington.jpg]] The miner who's lost his job. ![[Freedom Partners Josh.png]] Powerful images smash through the [[Creative or Clever? A Definition of Creativity.|barrier]] and speak directly to us. The art of creating a powerful image, and giving them time and breadth to carry a message, is what every political communicator should have top of mind with every piece of content, messaging, and spot. Because while few can create visual language -- it's hard to do, especially when we need to produce authentic "[[Five categories of political rhetoric|arguments]]" from people who are not actors - every human can read it. It's just how we're wired. So if you have an image that is worth a thousand words, let it linger. Spend a hundred frames on it. If you've got an agency that can't make them, well. . . . Yet - because so much of our quantitative and qualitative research is verbal - "_tell me what you think about this abstract idea, and then I will collate and rate your reaction_" - we don't put nearly enough emphasis into visual language as an industry. In other words, make every image matter. ## St Elmos Fire - An Awesomely Bad Example Great framing can make or break an image. Example? [St. Elmo's Fire (1985)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9Z0Aq8VrN0) Emilio Estevez is obsessed with Andie MacDowell, so he follows her to a cocktail party. He [creeps up to the window](https://youtu.be/Cr03UYTFBh0?si=GU6XFO55OrKsVFKY&t=52) just to get a glimpse of her. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Cr03UYTFBh0?si=kAK1KcY_JWRCYzGi" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe> The framing is what makes the emotion. It's the visual language good creatives speak, but everyone can read. Political ad makers can take note. - A third of Emilio Estevez's face being hidden as he peeks through the window. The eye reads sheepish, demur, intimidated. - As he emerges, the director frames him in the lower third, leaving the frame filled with dark emptiness. It reads "lonely." - The black silhouettes frame up Andie MacDowell as she removes her coat. - The overexposure in the background versus the dark suits in the foreground creates a tunnel to take your eye to Andie MacDowell in action. No posing. Every inch of the frame is intentional. The director knows where he wants your eye, and he puts it there. Contrast that with people standing awkwardly who are so common in mediocre political ads. You don’t have to understand mise-en-scene to feel his loneliness. If the camera showed Estevez's whole face, he'd be just creepy. Instead, vulnerable. That's visual language. Very few people can speak and create in visual language; it's a practice skill. But almost all humans **can read visual language, intuitively and immediately**. That's exactly why everyone consumes media, but few can create it. If you don't think visual language matters in political ads, then you aren't good at this. To put the idea of the St. Elmo’s fire shot in a political context, your framing is essential to conveying the right message to voters. Instead of taking a selfie with four people in a factory, turn the camera around and get a shot of the guy operating the sparking welding machine. Build the frame to draw the viewers eye to the spot where the emotion lies. Not a politician staging something in a factory, but someone doing hard and necessary work. Tell the viewer, I get you. Not "look at me," just to think of one common example. The frame of the candidate says "typical career politician, faking it while other people work around him." The frame of the welder says "we know you see the real work - so do we. And we thank you." ![[Pointing_In_A_Factory.png]] ![[Welder.jpg]]