Sarah's Lament - Context and Visual Communication

To All Presenters:

What impact does context have on a message?


Sarah Palin has complained that a recent cover photo for Newsweek was sexist. The image in question is of her standing in bicycle shorts beside an American flag. The photo was apparently borrowed without permission from an earlier article in Runner's World magazine. Above is the Newsweek cover and below is the original image from the Runner's World story. I present it here in the context of other images (from a series of seven) Runner's World published.

If the image wasn't sexist when it was published in the context of like images by a fitness magazine, how does it become sexist when it's published solo in a news magazine? Frankly, I'm not sure it does - this case seems a bit more bluster than fact by a politico-celebrity with a book to promote. However, while the motivations here are debatable, we shouldn't underestimate the power of context and imagery.

The St. Petersburg Times recently published an article regarding the tragic workplace shooting in Orlando a few weeks back. In the article were two images, one larger - of a smiling Caucasian man. The other smaller, grainier and of a young African-American man in a white shirt.

Viewed separately the images represent exactly what they are - pictures of people. But when you put them below a headline which indicates one man is a murder victim and the other a killer you provide a context. When one image resembles a family photo and the other a mugshot further context is implied. The result? Readers may perceive they are viewing images of a family man and the young minority male who murdered him. It isn't until they read the article the correct context of the photos become known.

And in this case, the opposite of what proved to be the common perception is true.

The fact is Jason Rodriguez shot killed 26 year-old Otis Beckford. But the context of the imagery presented by the newspaper conveys a different message.

In verbal communication there is a code transmitted which must be understood (decoded) to be received. The source of the message (the speaker) encodes their intent (speaks in a recognized language) the message is sent (verbally - out loud), received and decoded (heard and understood) by the receiver (audience). In visual communication there is no code. A picture of tree is a picture of a tree - the image denotes its subject matter entirely, there is no decoding required.

However, once we create a context for images there becomes a connotation which must be properly decoded by the viewer. Assuming different cultures, different socio-economic backgrounds and experiences are at play - the connotation of the images' context may vary by viewer.

So, while all may not have perceived the false implications of the St. Petersburg Times photos, and while I (a middle-aged male) may not find the use of the fitness photo in a news magazine evidence of inherent sexism - there are certainly those who do.

If a visual image has no code, in and of itself, we must be cautious about what message we imply when we provide a context for the image.

THE POINT: A picture is worth a thousand words, what those words say is controlled by the context (or lack thereof) in which the image is presented. Be cautious.

Project Management in Two Parts

To All Presenters (and Project Managers):

If you can't effectively convey the requirements for the project, if you can't speak geek to IT and strategic planning to the CEO equally well, if you can't foster an environment where everyone wants to be part of the team and feels like a contributor . . . you are hopelessly doomed.

You must communicate effectively to be successful. If there is a misunderstanding it will ultimately manifest itself in terms of excess time and expense.

So how do you communicate effectively with diverse groups of people? How do you avoid expensive misunderstandings?

You listen.

You listen as others repeat back your message to assure they understood what you said. You listen for cues from your audience regarding the information they seem interested in. This way you can tailor your own presentation to align with their needs and your language with their level of sophistication on the topic.

You also listen for emotional "tells." Is the team frustrated? Are they tired? Or do they convey a sense of high energy and commitment? If you're not listening, you'll never know.

You write.

You must communicate in both verbal and written form assuring both match. If someone doesn't understand your directives completely their confusion will become apparent when they can't get your verbal and non-verbal communication to jive.

You repeat.

Redundancy gets annoying, but just before it does it is an effective way to assure comprehension and support memory. Don't be afraid to repeat your message. You never know what will trigger the next great question from your team. Better to get questions now then contend with risk and overruns later.

THE POINT: Project Management is two parts communication, one part integration.

PowerPoint 3

To All Presenters:

Clipart = No

Your adherence to this policy is appreciated.

Seriously though, is it me?

To All Presenters:

It has been claimed the average vocabulary of 6 to 14 year olds is currently 10,000 words, a decline from 25,000 words in 1945. Allegedly the sources for these two stats were a book by Henry Rinsland and an unrelated report by Gary Ingersoll.

Reviewing 100,000 student compositions containing six million words total, Rinsland recorded 25,632 distinct words in the sample.

However, according to popular debunker website "The Straight Dope.com" - in 1984 Ingersoll conducted a similar study, but its sample was much smaller, just 5,000 students and half a million words total. With a sample size one twelth of the Rinsland study one would expect a far lower word count. And using rough estimates derived from the American Heritage Word Frequency Book, a 500,000 word sample should have around 60% fewer unique words than a six-million word sample regardless of vocabulary size. Coincidentally, the Ingersoll study reported the aforementioned 10,000 words, (10,265 to be exact) which is about 60% fewer compared to the results of Rinsland's study.

Ingersoll never paired his figures with Rinsland's results. A journalist somewhere along the line (I found references to this stat in Harpers Index, the New York Times and other publications) combined the two numbers and thus birthed an urban legend demonstrating society's linguistic decline. In fact, it is claimed Ingersoll has said he tried to set the record straight on past occasions to no avail. So as Mark Twain once said truly, "there are lies, damned lies and statistics."

Now, this stat may be garbage, but the jury is still out on our declining vocabularies.

To wit:

i can't blieve i had 2 explain 2 some1 that this is not the way 2 rite email 4 work . LOL!

THE POINT: Statistics aside? If this evidence of things to come, I think we might be screwed.

Symbology

To All Presenters:

"If it bleeds it reads," has been a common cliché in the media for generations. Another is, "a picture is worth a thousand words". Taken together, it would seem the ideal story is one with a picture of major damage or death to go along with it.

After you see enough of these images, read enough of these stories - they begin to break down. They are no longer tales of human tragedy but are instead symbols of themselves. Playing the role of the crushed car today will be a 2002 Honda Civic.

In recent days we've seen a number of media outlets get their wires crossed. As result images from one event are stated as being from another. A crowd from a protest years ago is presented as a crowd from a protest yesterday. Oddly enough, while the images were wrong the intent was correct. The media wasn't making an under attended event look like more than it was - they were simply careless when selecting their footage.

In the end it didn't really matter to the audiences - outside of a few competing pundits, no one seemed to care. All the audience expected to see was footage of a crowd, and that's what they saw. The symbol of a well attended event was all that was required, accuracy was not.

THE POINT: If it bleeds it reads, and a picture is worth a thousand words. If accuracy has become less important than symbology - I have to wonder if a body bag full of rocks because a photojournalist was too late to get the "real" shot is very far behind.

PowerPoint 2

To All Presenters:
Some fear guns.

I fear bullets.

PowerPoint sadly prevents us from making terrible mistakes, and thus users of this crutch can place an infinite number of bullets on a single slide. And if the user isn’t creating their own mini-library of congress they might instead choose to write 30-word bullet points designed to assure any viewer the presenter has done nothing to prepare.

Of even less value than long-winded bullets are the always popular emphasized bullets which guarantee the audience pays close attention to points generally of no interest to anyone other than the presenter.

Do us all a favor – remember the rules of 3 and 7. No more than three bullets to a slide and no more than seven words to a bullet. Keep things simple and concise – and in the name of all that’s holy, keep the emphasis in your voice and off your slides.

THE POINT: PowerPoint does not prevent you from being a bozo - you will have to do that yourself.

Reverse Psychology

To All Presenters:

Frederick the Great of Prussia had a thing for . . . potatoes.

He saw the subterranean veggies' potential to help feed his nation and diversify crops, thus mitigating the risk of famine and lowering the price of bread. A good plan, but one which faced many challenges in overcoming his people's prejudice against the plant. When he issued a 1774 order for his subjects to grow potatoes for all the aforementioned reasons, one town replied: "The things have neither smell nor taste, not even the dogs will eat them, so what use are they to us?" Others lamented that if God had intended us to eat potatoes, he would not have buried them in the ground.

Presuming a less direct approach may have better results, Frederick used a bit of reverse psychology. He declared potatoes a "royal vegetable" and had them planted in his royal fields which were then surrounded by royal guards with orders to do their job as poorly as possible. Prussians weren't stupid and quickly determined anything worth guarding was clearly worth stealing and so they soon snuck into the field, snatched the plants, and within months there was a sizeable underground market for potatoes (pun!). Which was, of course, Frederick's plan from the beginning.

So why does this work, why are we motivated by doing that which we are told not to do? Why is the forbidden fruit (or veggie) so tempting?

In a cursory review of dating advice sites and book jackets, playing hard to get remains a well-endorsed and apparently very successful means of getting the guy or gal of your choice to notice you.

I also found a number of parenting books which cited reverse psychology an a key means of convincing kids to follow the rules . . . or rather not follow the rules, reverse psychology can be confusing.

So if reverse psychology works well for kings of Prussia, and people looking for a date, parents trying to control kids and very likely kids trying to control their parents I must wonder . . . when will we see advertisements which state in the clearest possible terms, "Do NOT buy this product!"
Would that work?

THE POINT: Same seller, same product, same target audience . . . different message, better result.