Why did Rep. Pelosi use a negative backdrop?

(edited for the censors)
It's common sense. Shrub's handlers have this figured out. You make a positive, constructive message in whatever backdrop you choose to have behind you. Like "United in Victory" or "Wealth and Health" or "Mission Accomplished". Nothing complicated, just moderately competent PR.

But when Rep. Pelosi held that press briefing (I saw it on C-Span) about the Medicare bill, she had this sign behind her that said -- I s**t you not --
"Bad for Seniors . . . Bad for Medicare . . . Bad for Seniors . . . Bad for Medicare"
People watching that talk saw her head surrounded in a halo of "Bad". Now that's just not helpful, because the message the visual subconscious receives is "Nancy Pelosi is Bad, Bad for Medicare and Bad for Seniors, Bad Nancy."

Sure, it fit the topic of her speech, but that's not the point of a backdrop.

If Democrats are going to use backdrops at all, the message needs to present a positive interpretation of what they're doing. Like "Hold Out For A Real Plan" or "Saving Medicare" or even "Keep Quality Medicare". Then, the visual message is "Nancy Pelosi is Saving Medicare, she's Holding Out For A Real Plan, she's into Keeping Quality!"

Another thing, minor by comparison but I think it's significant, is the backdrop should be at least the size of the widest camera angle that will be used. That way it presents some sort of rudimentary ambience, even during zoom shots. When the shot opened up just a little from full zoom on the podium and her head, it was obvious that the backdrop was a dorky little sign stuck on an easel. Bad sign. Bad Nancy. Bad Democratic PR Guy.

Overall, her critique was right on, but Dems need to wise up to the way the brainwashed consumer mind works. Present a positive slogan like "We Have A Plan" on the backdrop, and it doesn't matter if all you do is rip on the other guy's plan; people will assume you have something better to offer whether you enunciate it or not. This is a subtle effect, but a very real one. Democrats are frequently pilloried as petulant naysayers, when they could be advertising an alternative vision even if they don't have one just by changing the scenery.

Yes, we humans really are that shallow. Try this experiment: turn off the sound on your TV and watch fast food commercials, or a bush* speech, and you will notice the visual message more. Flip the sound off and on a few times, compare the visual message to the aural. With or without the sound, the same images get across. Look for the things that impact your opinion, positively or negatively.

Personally, I think this is why bush* gets a free ride from a lot of moderates. He's horrible on the issues, he can't even put a coherent sentence together half the time. But he projects a visual image and ambience that many people find soothing and amiable. Sure, you probably don't, but try the sound on/off experiment, watch shrub with the sound off, and chances are he'll seem far less annoying than with the sound on.

sometimes, the Democratic party should hire us here at DU. We know everything that is wrong with our party. Ya think we could really replace our elected officers?

If the Democratic staffers on Capitol hill are policy wonks and don't know how to sell a message or products, than get them out of there.

Our elected officials should take speech classes becuase they sometimes don't know how to sell a message.

You don't even have to be a professional ad-man to know how this plays out, a simple awareness of how one's own consumer brain works is enough to provide general steering away from negative associations.

republicans appear to have this mastered. Of course, sometimes it backfires, like "boxgate" (remember that gaffe?) or "mission accomplished", but the effect is already achieved.

We ignore their effect at our own peril.

In this case, it might've been a good way to get the message out. The message has to be short and punchy and DRAMATIC!

Some of the elderly don't have the best hearing, they'll be looking for visual cues about who to trust, who cares for them, who has the long-term outlook figured. And some of them don't have great eyesight, either, so the print must be large and adequately serifed. And some of them don't have energetic memories, so the message must be easily remembered.

whatever PR people she's got working on this stuff don't understand that it's a matter of psychological association, not hypnosis.

Nancy was trashing the republicans with her words, while destroying her own credibility with her backdrop. Consider that many people won't stick around to hear the whole speach, whereas a short visual slogan can be retained by any dufus flipping through the channels.

No leadership. Always on the defensive. If Kuchinich doesn't make it as President, Dems should consider him for a future leadership role in the House.

but I think he understands the need for a positive message, something to put in place of a void.

I always liked his speaking style. And yes, he definetly deserves a place in the House leadership.

:shrug:

Something like this, it should be a common sense slam dunk, or at least a lay-up. It's a very simple principle: the backdrop associates with the speaker, not the subject of the speech.

Do you think the lemon image is clear enough? Seems to me a person with poor eyesight could easily mistake it for a yellow pill, in which case the Democratic message confounds itself into "no prescriptions".

of your post or a link to it? It would be helpful for her to read it.

they have to counter the AARP ads, which I've read are conveying a message of benignness.

The backdrop is not the speach.



Also, notice the serifed font. Serifs make text easier to read. The Democrats' backdrop was not serifed.

Liberals like non-serif fonts, like Comic Sans MS. (Without serifs)

Conservatives seem to like Serifed text. Don't believe me?

Case in point...
Note the Freep logo:


vs

DU Logo


I also notice around the office, that progressives have MS Word set to Comic Sans or Arial...the conservatives keep the New Times Roman.

Sure...it's not scientific, but it's a fun theory.

ON EDIT: Just noticed that the freep default font is serifed! Ours isn't!!!

I wonder what it means? I really appreciate serif'd, especially in long messages and articles, for the ease of reading. "sans serif" fonts are kind of minimalist, maybe it's an appeal to modernism.

Guys, all the above BS is just fed to gullible people by so called ad experts, who have no clue about what scientific evidence is out there about the subliminal effects you are implying (or if they have a clue, they would not tell you that they are small effects of little practical importance). I think Pelosi is an idiot, but not because of the sign!!! -CV

I am not an "ad expert", nor is this a "subliminal" effect. The effect is completely liminal, and the association process is automatic. When we remember what we see, it isn't necessarily connected to what we hear. If the effect were negligible, companies wouldn't use it for expensive television advertising.

the subconscious, no ? Don't you know that subconscious and subliminal are the same thing ? And what the hell are you talking about when you say that the association is automatic ? Are you saying that if I show you a picture of somebody you like with the word "idiot" superimposed, then you'll start thinking that person is an idiot ? Yeah, try to publish this theory somewhere and then come back... In the meanwhile, I suggest you focus on real issues, not on this BS. -CV

Well no wonder we disagree: you're confused.

sub·lim·i·nal adj. Psychology
1. Below the threshold of conscious perception. Used of stimuli.
2. Inadequate to produce conscious awareness but able to evoke a response: subliminal propaganda.

sub·con·scious
adj.
Not wholly conscious; partially or imperfectly conscious: subconscious perceptions.
n.
The part of the mind below the level of conscious perception.

Subliminal effects are subconscious, but not all subconscious activity is due to subliminal input. Subliminal messages are those which are NOT consciously noticed, but produce an effect nonetheless. I'm talking about an associative effect which occurs precisely because it is noticed.

> Are you saying that if I show you a picture of somebody you like
> with the word "idiot" superimposed, then you'll start thinking that
> person is an idiot ?

I might think you're an idiot for suggesting this is equivalent to what I'm saying.

If you present a picture of someone I like with the word "idiot" written on it, I could well take offense because I reject the association based on prior knowledge. We see it happening all the time, with candidate image photoshopping. The more important question you should ask is, if you put up a picture of someone I don't know with that label, does the label affect my impression of that person before I meet her?

What Rep. Pelosi did is analogous to giving a speech denouncing Hitler with the Nazi flag displayed in the background.