Before you even pick up the pencil (or the mouse) ask yourself questions and think about what you want to convey. Turn that into something actionable, which is kind of a buzzword, but basically to us means something that is able to turn theory to practice. Most non-designers and beginners will say “I want to draw something that will get people to act!” and this is correct, but that’s not super actionable. We know this from our organizational practice, as we criticize liberals for thinking “acting” ends at holding up a sign in congress when trump is speaking or whatever. It’s the same thing here. If we want to guide people to effective practice, then we need to point that out.
This takes experience which is built with trial and error. It’s why designers have so much workshop time in school lol.
You can also reverse engineer existing material, but this takes work. Again I often see people giving an existing piece one look, think they know everything about it, and then proceed to make something tangentially related, getting the form of it but not the actual content of it. I was like that too. But if we want to learn, we have to struggle with the material. It doesn’t just fall into our lap. Take the time to really engage with examples of what you’d consider good propaganda, as much time as you need. Takes this leaflet dropped on US troops during the invasion of Korea:
(text on the left reads “Frozen Rations eaten on the run. Any moment he may have to run again, to fight or die - and so may you.”)
This leaflet was the result of a process of decisions, some of them conscious, some of them probably subconscious. It’s also pretty easy to study: disheveled and depressed soldier on the left in black and white, happy family celebrating christmas in technicolor on the right. And a message that would finish me off if I was in his place fighting at Chosin lol.
What makes this effective? The first thing that makes this effective is if it worked in practice. But worked at what? can we reverse-engineer this leaflet to figure out what they wanted to happen with it? First, who was it even made for? From reading the copy it seems pretty clear: US soldiers find a way out, it’s no disgrace to quit fighting in this unjust war. It’s telling soldiers to remember their family at home and invoke emotions, and then it sends a call to action (you should look into the AIDA model too btw, it’s pretty ubiquitous and also super old, older than the 20th century lol). It’s telling soldiers, do whatever you can to go home. Shoot yourself in the foot if you have to.
Was it effective? Well, it probably wasn’t the only piece of propaganda they dropped on the enemy that christmas, and it was probably sent at the right time. Do it enough times, to enough people, and eventually you’ll probably have a few who will hesitate to pull the trigger, or who will surrender just a second faster than they would have otherwise. We gauge the theory on real data in a theory->practice->theory dialectic. Theory informs practice informs new theory.
This is a constant iteration process, improving a little bit at a time. Sometimes success is difficult to measure, but it pays to do this type of self-crit at the end of a project. Make something, send it out, then study if it worked, why, and how. Then do just a little bit better next time. I think the first thing people have to divorce from their design self is self-loathing. It’s okay to take time, it’s okay to make mistakes, and it’s okay to improve just one tiny little thing. Even just reducing typos the next time you submit something is an improvement.
Wow, thanks for all the insight! I think in general this is a very good mentality to have, and to pause and really reflect on it before even picking up the pencil as you say.
The focus on actionability is interesting though. Would you not say that some forms of propaganda aren’t necessarily meant to spur action per se, but rather serve as an opener or starter? Maybe I’m not wording this correctly, but it would follow the same concept as the Funnel model. Some forms of media would have large appeal and only serve to push people further down the funnel to be more receptive to other forms of media or propaganda.
Or would you consider this a non-effective path that is akin to the sign-holding you mentioned? Or perhaps I am misanalysing this concept.
With the example you gave, the goal is very clear and it’s quite straightforward to break down. I wonder if you have any more examples that are perhaps a bit more modern as well.
Before you even pick up the pencil (or the mouse) ask yourself questions and think about what you want to convey. Turn that into something actionable, which is kind of a buzzword, but basically to us means something that is able to turn theory to practice. Most non-designers and beginners will say “I want to draw something that will get people to act!” and this is correct, but that’s not super actionable. We know this from our organizational practice, as we criticize liberals for thinking “acting” ends at holding up a sign in congress when trump is speaking or whatever. It’s the same thing here. If we want to guide people to effective practice, then we need to point that out.
This takes experience which is built with trial and error. It’s why designers have so much workshop time in school lol.
You can also reverse engineer existing material, but this takes work. Again I often see people giving an existing piece one look, think they know everything about it, and then proceed to make something tangentially related, getting the form of it but not the actual content of it. I was like that too. But if we want to learn, we have to struggle with the material. It doesn’t just fall into our lap. Take the time to really engage with examples of what you’d consider good propaganda, as much time as you need. Takes this leaflet dropped on US troops during the invasion of Korea:
(text on the left reads “Frozen Rations eaten on the run. Any moment he may have to run again, to fight or die - and so may you.”)
This leaflet was the result of a process of decisions, some of them conscious, some of them probably subconscious. It’s also pretty easy to study: disheveled and depressed soldier on the left in black and white, happy family celebrating christmas in technicolor on the right. And a message that would finish me off if I was in his place fighting at Chosin lol.
What makes this effective? The first thing that makes this effective is if it worked in practice. But worked at what? can we reverse-engineer this leaflet to figure out what they wanted to happen with it? First, who was it even made for? From reading the copy it seems pretty clear: US soldiers find a way out, it’s no disgrace to quit fighting in this unjust war. It’s telling soldiers to remember their family at home and invoke emotions, and then it sends a call to action (you should look into the AIDA model too btw, it’s pretty ubiquitous and also super old, older than the 20th century lol). It’s telling soldiers, do whatever you can to go home. Shoot yourself in the foot if you have to.
Was it effective? Well, it probably wasn’t the only piece of propaganda they dropped on the enemy that christmas, and it was probably sent at the right time. Do it enough times, to enough people, and eventually you’ll probably have a few who will hesitate to pull the trigger, or who will surrender just a second faster than they would have otherwise. We gauge the theory on real data in a theory->practice->theory dialectic. Theory informs practice informs new theory.
This is a constant iteration process, improving a little bit at a time. Sometimes success is difficult to measure, but it pays to do this type of self-crit at the end of a project. Make something, send it out, then study if it worked, why, and how. Then do just a little bit better next time. I think the first thing people have to divorce from their design self is self-loathing. It’s okay to take time, it’s okay to make mistakes, and it’s okay to improve just one tiny little thing. Even just reducing typos the next time you submit something is an improvement.
Wow, thanks for all the insight! I think in general this is a very good mentality to have, and to pause and really reflect on it before even picking up the pencil as you say.
The focus on actionability is interesting though. Would you not say that some forms of propaganda aren’t necessarily meant to spur action per se, but rather serve as an opener or starter? Maybe I’m not wording this correctly, but it would follow the same concept as the Funnel model. Some forms of media would have large appeal and only serve to push people further down the funnel to be more receptive to other forms of media or propaganda. Or would you consider this a non-effective path that is akin to the sign-holding you mentioned? Or perhaps I am misanalysing this concept.
With the example you gave, the goal is very clear and it’s quite straightforward to break down. I wonder if you have any more examples that are perhaps a bit more modern as well.
That’s actionability too :P