Communicating with your Communicators

This was another class assignment for my grad certificate.  I incorporated Michael Stipe in this by using him in photo examples.  Because I love him.

Originally submitted for JOMC 712 at UNC on April 30, 2012.

Communicating with your Communicator
A guide to graphics, color and typography

It’s happened to all of us: you’ve asked your marketing pro to make a graphic for an upcoming event and you thought you were totally clear in what you wanted but what ends up in your inbox is not at all what you imagined.  You know he or she can’t read your mind, but surely what you asked for was clear enough, right?

On the flip side, a seemingly simple project lands on your desk and it needs to be done yesterday.  You get started, only to end up going back and forth with the client because the original instructions include a low-res graphic with a vague description. What should have taken a few hours turns into an all-day back and forth on graphic, color or word choices.  Isn’t there a way this could have been solved from the get-go?

Regardless of which side you’re on (and some of us have been on both), it’s a frustrating situation to be in.  Since none of us are mind readers (or at least, we can’t prove that we are yet!), there has to be a better way.

“By sharing a common fundamental understand of visual communication, my clients and I could progress more quickly towards achieving the communication goal at hand,” Jill Powell, Marketing Manager at the University of North Carolina says.

Heather Davis, Marketing & Communications Specialist at Johnson College agrees.  “The more others understand my needs and the College’s needs and why they exist, the more smoothly I can manage my time and resources.”

Miscommunication may even cost you a chance at getting the promotional exposure you need.

“If someone sends me a press release that is a mess,” Patrice Wilding, lifestyles reporter for the Scranton Times-Tribune says, “I am not going to want to respond or work with them specifically since they have not demonstrated a basic understanding of their material or the professionalism it takes to communicate with a serious publication.”

So to make everyone’s already hectic careers a little less so, here are some important concepts to keep in mind when embarking on a new visual project.

Graphics
A picture is worth a thousand words, but you don’t need to remember that many.

“It seems just about every week I have conversations with clients about why their low resolution image pulled from a social media website will not suffice for a print piece, or why a tiny graphic they created in an office productivity application will not render nicely on a t-shirt screen print,” Powell says.

While you may not be a pro at Photoshop, you can be a pro at learning a few key photo and graphic ideas to help your communicator create the best possible outcome.

Resolution: refers to the quality of an image.  Typically, you’ll hear “hi-res” or “low-res” images. Low-res images are usually anything you’ve saved from the web and are best avoided if possible.  “It makes my job easier when I am sent pictures that are of a higher resolution,” Davis says.  It’s better to err on the side of high resolution rather than low.  High resolution photos can always be made into lower resolution, but the reverse is not true.

If you are asking your communicator to also act as photographer, it may be helpful to give him or her a bit of direction in the type of photo you’re looking for.  One of Poynter’s self-guided course outlines three types of photos.

Informational: basically, a person, place or thing.  Not extremely visually interesting but literally gets the information across.

Example:

Michael Stipe on a step and repeat. source

Passive: staged photos, with a posed person, place or thing, usually in the form of a portrait.

Example:

Michael Stipe photographed by Slava Mogutin for Whitewall Magazine. source

Active: real time, real life, not staged photos.  These capture the action as it’s happening, and tend to make the most visually pleasing photos.

Example:

Michael Stipe live in Raleigh, NC. source

If you’ve already got the photos but don’t know which the best to choose are, JProf.com has a great article that can help you get started on narrowing it down.

Color
More than just ROYGBIV.

“There’s a reason why we use certain colors,” Davis says.  And it’s not just because it looks pretty.  Color theory is a complex subject, but a basic understanding of a few color concepts will help you communicate your ideas with your communicator immensely.

Color Wheel: You may remember learning about primary and secondary colors as a youngster in art class.  This handy tool is extremely useful when creating color schemes for projects, and understanding how it works will give you the ability to give great direction.

Example of a color wheel

source

Warm colors: the colors on the wheel ranging from red to yellow.  They give a feeling of urgency, energy, passion and excitement

source

Cool colors: the colors on the wheel ranging from blue to violet.  They give a sense of calmness, relaxation and professionalism.

source

Neutral colors: black and white, as well as shades of gray, brown, beige and cream.  They are especially effective when used as a backdrop for more vibrant colors.

source

Commentary colors:  colors on opposite ends of the color wheel.  They are often visually pleasing when used together.

source

Analogous colors:  colors next to one another on the color wheel.

source

There are plenty of resources on the web to help you delve more into color and color theory, including the more involved subjects of hue, chroma, saturation, brightness, shade, tint, etc.  For more information, check out Smashing Magazine’s three-part series (1, 2, 3).

If your client or company has a predetermined set of colors that it always uses, make that clear in your project instructions.  If you’re working with a communicator who primarily works in one area, he or she will probably understand what you need even if you don’t know the specific color attributes.  For example, if you’re dealing with someone who works at the University of North Carolina and your request includes the phrase “Tar Heel Blue,” he or she working on the project will likely know the exact hue, tint or shade for that.

Text and Typography
Read between the lines.

Take time and consideration when your piece has a text component.  If you’re pitching a publication, make sure your press release highlights the most important items.  “I like for the message and/or relevant information to be clear and easy to identify,” advises Wilding. “This makes my job easier when it comes to supporting the merits of the story and actually writing/coordinating the art for a story.”

Organizations like newspapers will already have a set typography.  However, in other outlets you may have the opportunity to control the look and feel of your text.  Understanding some simple typography will help you steer your communicator in the right direction.

Serif: tiny strokes at the end of the letters

Examples:

source: author

Sans Serif: literally, without those tiny strokes on at the end of the letters.

Examples:

source: author

If you’re interested in getting more in-depth with typography, Poynter offers a free self-guided course.  To help you in picking out typeface, read Smashing Magazine’s article on font familes.

Whether you’re the person who will be doing the actual piece or the client requesting the work, make it a point to remember these basic definitions when you’re about to embark on a new project.  If you’re the person on the giving end, take a few extra minutes before shooting off that email or requesting that new project to make sure your direction is clear and that you’ve hit all the important points (making sure to include pertinent graphics in the correct resolution, color suggestions and any copy).  If you’re on the receiving end, take a few seconds before getting started to make sure you understand what the client wants and to make sure you have all the necessary tools and direction.  “Teamwork, patience and flexibility are important in visual communications,” says Davis.    I’d add communication and knowledge to that list as well.

Is This the Real Life, or It It Just Fantasy?

I wrote this for a course I took for my graduate certificate in Fall 2012.  We had to write a research paper on whatever topic we chose.  I wanted to keep myself interested, so I chose a subject I love dearly: reality TV dating shows.  

Originally submitted for JOMC 714 at UNC on November 11, 2012.

Is This the Real Life, or Is It Just Fantasy?
Love and dating on reality TV and how it influences real-life love

You probably do not put much thought into where your ideas about dating, relationships, love and marriage come from.  Sit in on any Psychology 101 lecture and you will hear the professor tell students that the images surrounding them have a bearing on what they perceive as love: their parents, things they read, television programs they watch.  There is no doubt that television has an influence on how members of society view their own ideal relationships.  Scripted shows from “I Love Lucy” to the “Cosby Show” to “Modern Family” have often shown us the perfect relationship, the perfect family and how they are constructed.  However, as viewers, we know that what we are seeing on shows like that is not real: someone wrote it, and actors are playing it out on screen for our entertainment.

Now, in the 21st century, reality TV blurs the line between what is fake on TV and what is supposed to be real.  In the era of reality TV, the viewer has real people to look at as role models in influencing behaviors and norms.  This is ever-present in the reality TV dating show where your average Joe or Jane has a chance to find love in glamorous and exciting ways.

It has long been documented that television (and the media in general) is a strong influence on constructing one’s personal beliefs and ideals.  So what does this say about dating in real life?

WHAT IS REALITY TV?
It may seem like a silly question, but the answer to what defines reality TV isn’t clear cut.  Everyone has a different picture pop into their head when hearing the term “reality TV.”  Some might instantly think of competitive endurance shows:  “The Amazing Race,” “Survivor.”  Some might think of competitive shows where an audience helps choose a winner:  “American Idol,” “Dancing with the Stars.”  Others go straight to shows that follow the lives of certain people, sometimes famous (“Keeping up with the Kardashians”) or the not (yet) famous (Real Housewives series).  To put it simply, and for the context of this article, reality TV is any show that purports itself to be unscripted, whether it be a competition or following everyday life.

LOVE ON REALITY
According to Nielsen Ratings, in July 2012, 8.9 million viewers tuned in to ABC to watch Emily Maynard chose her mate on the season finale of the eighth season of “The Bachelorette.” She began the season with 25 suitors, and had narrowed it down to two by the final episode.  Love was thick in the air as Jef Holm got down on one knee and proposed after dating Emily for about three months.

Shows like “The Bachelor” and “The Bachelorette” characterize love as an inevitability, a luxury and highly romantic pursuit.  Private island picnics, helicopter rides, intimate overnight dates in luxurious suites are par for the course.  For a show that touts itself as reality, it seems like these exotic dates couldn’t be further from most people’s real life. Indeed, many people seem to go on reality TV to experience the types of things you cannot or do not normally experience in your everyday life (Syvertsen 2001).

However, a study on Trista Rehn, who starred as the first bachelorette of the series, and her subsequent marriage to the man she chose, Ryan, showed that despite the grandiose nature of the wedding itself, viewers were influenced by the idea of reproducing the fantasy portrayed in real life weddings, despite affordability (Sgroi 2006). While the amount of money spent on weddings is actually down in recent years, the number of people going into debt over their dream wedding is still high (Grossman 2012).  Research has shown that debt, in general, is a leading cause of divorce in marriage (Marshall and Skogrand 2004).  Spending a fortune before the marriage even starts may set a negative tone for the future of the relationship.  It is ironic that the likelihood of divorce is increased by being in debt, which often begins or is exacerbated with the wedding itself!

An important factor to consider is why people watch these types of reality programs to begin with.  Reality TV is often seen as escapist entertainment, as a way to step out of your own reality and into someone else’s. Escape and the feeling of excitement while watching have been cited by viewers as reasons why they tune in (Roberti 2007). In youth, it may even be the result of modeling after peers (Vandenbosch and Eggermont 2011). Learning the social norms of relationships is occasionally cited as a reason to watch (Roberti 2007) but may actually have less of an influence than you might think. In fact, it appears that the viewer who says they are watching for entertainment purposes is shown to have more attitudes influenced by these programs than previously expected (Zubriggen and Morgan 2006).  You could be watching something and say that you are not in it to get a take-away, but your behaviors and attitudes may be adjusting without you even realizing it.

LOVE IN REALITY
So how does watching dating on reality TV manifest itself in everyday life?
It turns out, a stronger belief and faith in romance portrayed on TV, both scripted and reality, correlates to an ability to actually be less likely to stay committed in a relationship (Osborn 2012).   Perhaps the glorified romance of such programming leads to unreasonable or unattainable expectations in reality?

Stereotyping is a huge byproduct of heavy reality TV watching.  In particular, feelings that women are sex objects and men are sex-driven (Ferris et al 2007) and that love is a game (Cherry 2008, Ferris et al 2007) are strengthened with increased watching. These attitudes can play out in not only self-sabotaging ways, such as avoiding relationships and placing judgments on potential partners, but can be dangerous as well. The idea of women as sex objects may lead men to more deviant sexual behaviors or the idea that men are sex-driven may lead to women being overly skeptical of the motives of men. Not to mention, thinking of love as a game implies there is a winner … and a loser.

Perceptions of how aspects of dating are portrayed also contribute to how relationships play out in real life. Men report viewing sex as being portrayed realistically on reality TV, while women report love is portrayed realistically (Punyanunt-Carter 2006). In a heterosexual relationship, this could mean a conflict of expectations within the relationship setting. For example, with love and sex often happening fast on reality TV, a woman may be focusing on the romance portion while a man is focusing on the bedroom and they end up missing each other on different trajectories.

Implications of reality television dating shows are seen strongly in adolescents.  Girls in particular have their attitudes shaped by watching love on reality TV. Talk of sex among peers increases in girls who watch these types of programs, and their perception level of the experience of peer boys also elevates (Vandenbosch and Eggermont 2011). Tack on peer pressure and hormones and this could lead straight to an increase in sexual behaviors that they may not have been considering or ready to participate in yet.

One phenomena not fully explored is the connection viewers feel between themselves and the reality star. In one study, participants would talk about reality stars as if they were talking about a friend, and mentioned going so far as to connect with that person on social media (Cherry 2008). Does this mean that the viewer may be looking for love … with the person on television who is looking for love?

An interesting point to consider is the success (or rather, lack of success) rate of couples that come from the “Bachelor” and “Bachelorette” series. Of the 16 seasons of “The Bachelor,” 14 couples broke up within one year and none have resulted in marriage. Of eight “Bachelorette” couples, four ended within a year, two ended within two years, one is still engaged and one is married. The congenial feeling viewers have towards characters on these programs may cause the viewers to actually feel the break up with couple, which in turn could play out negatively in their own relationship.

THE OTHER SIDE
There is, however, evidence that does show little correlation between television watching and the construction of ideals of love. A study of single women showed that other factors–in particular, age and how long she’s been single–are stronger in defining their social identity (Cheever 2010). This does not account for how the woman comes up with the ideas of when the right age is to be settled down or how long is too long to be single.

Since 1990, both the marriage and divorce rate in the United States has gone down (U.S. Census of Population and Housing 2012). Whether or not reality television, or any television at all, has any role in this particular change in society is unknown.  However, it is important to note this change as it signifies a change in cultural norms regarding marriage in the United States, which may have roots in the portrayal of love on television.

Gender roles may also play an important role in the outcome of reality dating shows. No couple out of 16 seasons has persevered from “The Bachelor,” while two out of eight survived “The Bachelorette,” resulting in one marriage so far.  Relationships stemming from “The Bachelorette” also tend to last longer. This begs the question: when women are in the driver’s seat position of these shows, is it coincidence that their successes are higher, or is there something else going on?

Furthermore, studies about dating on reality TV focus primarily on relationships between a woman and a man. This may be due to the lack of dating programs that feature gay contestants. It would be interesting to study the impressions of gay viewers on heterosexual dating programs to see if it has any influence on their relationships in real life.

IN REALITY
When reality TV began to become more prevalent, it was seen as an alternative to scripted or news television. Ordinary people have an opportunity to step into a world they may never get to otherwise experience (Syvertsen 2001).  It makes sense, then, that viewers would relate to people in those positions and possibly see them as peers and role models for their dating behaviors.

The question becomes, then, as more people enter reality dating television and bring the norms they have learned from programs before, does the connection between dating in real life and dating on television become cyclical? Or, are they two linear and somewhat parallel paths? My guess is it is somewhere in between. We tune in nightly, mainly with the purpose of being entertained and maybe escaping our own reality, but it turns out that when we turn off the pressure of trying to “get something” out of television, we may turn on something else that allows us to soak up the things we see without even realizing it (Zubriggen and Morgan 2006).  And whether we like it or not, our desires and dreams of the fantasy of love and the perfect marriage have roots in reality TV (Sgroi 2006).

Love has always had encouragement from pop culture, and with the continuous growth in both the number and popularity of reality TV programs, perceptions of love will continue to be influenced by dating television.

 

References
Cheever, Nancy Ann. 2010. “The Cultivation of Social Identity In Single Women: The Role of Single Female Characterizations and Marriage and Romantic Relationship Portrayals on Television”. PhD diss., Fielding Graduate University.
Cherry, Kristin L. 2008. “Reality TV and Interpersonal Relationship Perceptions.” PhD diss. University of Missouri – Columbia.
Ferris, Amber L., Sandi W. Smith, Bradley S. Greenberg and Stacy L. Smith. 2007. “The Content of Reality Dating Shows and Viewer Perceptions of Dating”. Journal of Communication 57, no. 3: 490–510.
Grossman, Cathy L. 2012. “Average Couple Spends $26,989 On Wedding; Many Break Budget.” USA Today. August 10, 2012.
Marshall, James P., and Linda Skogrand. 2004. ”Newlywed Debt: The Anti-Dowry.” The Forum 9, no. 1.
Osborn, Jeremy L. 2012. “When TV and Marriage Meet: A Social Exchange Analysis of the Impact of Television Viewing on Marital Satisfaction and Commitment.” Mass Communication and Society 15., no.5: 739-757.
Punyanunt-Carter, Narissra Maria. 2006. “Love on Television: Reality Perception Differences Between Men and Women.” North American Journal Of Psychology 8, no. 2: 269-276.
Roberti, Jonathan W. 2007. “Demographic Characteristics and Motives of Individuals Viewing Reality Dating Shows.” Communication Review 10, no. 2: 117- 134.
Sgroi, Renee. 2006. “Consuming the Reality TV Wedding.” Ethnologies 28, no. 2: 113.
Syvertsen, Trine. 2001. “Ordinary People In Extraordinary Circumstances: A Study of Participants In Television Dating Games.” Media, Culture & Society 23, no.3:319-337.
U.S. Census of Population and Housing. 2012. “Births, Deaths, Marriages, & Divorces: Marriages and Divorces.” Washington, D.C.
Vandenbosch, Laura, and Steven Eggermont. 2011. “Temptation Island, the Bachelor, Joe Millionaire: A Prospective Cohort Study On the Role of Romantically Themed Reality Television In Adolescents’ Sexual Development.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 55, no.4:563-580.
Zurbriggen, Eileen L., and Elizabeth M. Morgan. 2006. “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?  Reality Dating Television Programs, Attitudes towards Sex, and Sexual Behaviors.” Sex Roles 54, no. 1-2:1-17.