Experience is a great teacher! Re: Yard Signs

[GunnyFreedom]

Old Yardsign (100 made)

http://i41.tinypic.com/70jor8.jpg

New Yardsign (500 will be made)

http://i42.tinypic.com/2mo2ro7.jpg

Yeah, the new one is a lot better. :cool:

[GunnyFreedom]

PS -- the reason they look all pixellated is because they are 3 color GIFs, which when shrunk to this size cannot dither being restricted to only 3 colors. :o

[GunnyFreedom]

Any word before I pull the trigger on this order? I'm dropping about $1000 of my recent middlish inheritance into the campaign to cover this...

[rprprs]

Glen,

I'll be honest here. I guess I'm just a fan of simplicity, but I'm not sure I would repeat the flag graphic at the bottom. I think it complicates and distracts. Also, maybe it's just me, but it almost looks like the the sign was printed on a long roll and was cut at the wrong place...as though the top of the next sign was mistakenly included. I don't know if that makes any sense, but it was just my first impression.
Anyway, I think I'd prefer this...
http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm139/rprprs/2mo2ro7.jpg

Hope you don't mind my criticism, it was meant to be helpful, and I wish you the best of luck.

[specsaregood]

but I'm not sure I would repeat the flag graphic at the bottom. I think it complicates and distracts.
I'm with you 100%

[GunnyFreedom]

Hmmm... interesting....

The reason I did that in the first place was due to the limitation I had to work with on sizes. Within my budget it's pretty much 18x24 or nothing. With so much more vertical space to fill than horizontal I was kind of at a loss to avoid so much whitespace.

Now, however, with the redesign I could very well reformulate that....

let me see what I can come up with...

[Cowlesy]

Could you do one like Rand Paul's sign? They're simple and get the point across.

http://www.randpaul2010.com/wp-content/uploads/wpsc/product_images/rand%20paul%20yard%20sign-2.jpg

Add your website under "NC House 2010."

dunno, i'm not much of a graphic guy..just some layman input

[GunnyFreedom]

Problem with that, Cowlesy, is the aspect ratio I am forced to work with. Without the gigantic volume that Ron and Rand are dealing with, 12x24 actually comes out twice as expensive as 18x24. Without adding.....something.... you end up with literally ENORMOUS blank space top and or bottom that kind of looks like a design error.

In any case, here is the version I came up with from input so far. I made two, one with the Glen on the left and the flag expanded:

http://i42.tinypic.com/25owg01.gif

and one with the Glen centered and the flag 'squished':

http://i41.tinypic.com/2e21avd.gif

[Cowlesy]

Ah that makes sense Glen -- see that's why I don't comment on this stuff because aspect-ratios/size/etc, all way over my head.

For what it is worth, I like the second one better. If you could lose the flag all-together and just have it solid like the rest of the sign, I think it'd be cleaner.

[GunnyFreedom]

Ah that makes sense Glen -- see that's why I don't comment on this stuff because aspect-ratios/size/etc, all way over my head.

For what it is worth, I like the second one better. If you could lose the flag all-together and just have it solid like the rest of the sign, I think it'd be cleaner.

I actually tend to like cleaner also, but there is also the problem of catching the eye amongst a bazillion other campaign signs strewn about the landscape everywhere you look. :(

Signs around here are sprouting up like mushrooms after a rain and they choke major intersections in a plethora of panels. I did notice from the first design that the "busyness" at the top snatched at the eyeballs you just had to get closer than you should have to read it.

If this were in isolation I'd remove the graphic in a heartbeat, but in the environment as it stands I need something to capture attention also.

[erowe1]

Could we see one with no flag graphic at all?

It's red white and blue with a stripe and a star anyway. I agree that simplicity is important for this.

Also, I'd vote for cutting out the word "for:".

[erowe1]

I actually tend to like cleaner also, but there is also the problem of catching the eye amongst a bazillion other campaign signs strewn about the landscape everywhere you look. :(

I'm not sure how important catching the eye is. Drivers naturally notice yard signs and look past them without thinking about them. The point isn't to distract drivers, it's just to build up repetitive reinforcement of the idea that you're a serious candidate. Name recognition is what it's all about.

[MozoVote]

The goal of signs, is to give casual voters the impression that a candidate has "meaningful support from real people". IE, it's all about name recognition.

I think the second version, with the centered name, stands out more.

[GunnyFreedom]

I'll work on demonstrating some of the other versions mentioned here tonight. I can wait until Monday to send the design (I need bumper stickers too...)

Gonne get a little rest -- been up 24 hrs between meetings, and materials production. Also got a new tool that is going to make my website a lot cleaner and more professional. :D Already adjusted the "sticky" on the home page (just a quick touch-up of the html, not a ground up rewrite) , and all new articles are going to look mad tons better than the prior ones.

I'll be biting the bullet and getting the Adobe Master Suite CS5 when it ships in a few weeks on my own dime of course. It brings me to tears just thinking about the $2.5k price tag ($800 for students) but it's got mad tools that I actually need. :(

WRT the signs, when I'm conscious again I'll collect what input is in the thread and pop a 10th revision for discussion. I'm going to sent it to the printers Monday morning and start distributing them to the clamoring masses as soon as they arrive. :D

[rprprs]

Once again, I'm gonna be contrary here...lol.
So far, the momentum seems to be in favor of the second version (first name centered). But I prefer the first version (name to the left). I think it "flows" better from the stars above. The centered name "fights" that continuity.
I'd also agree with erowe1... lose the word "for". It's largely superfluous.

[Romulus]

Less = More

Simple, clean, easy to read is more effective, looks professional and leaves a lasting impression.

[phill4paul]

Glenn, I'll give a casual suggestion that might take a significant amount of rework on your part.

Ditch the red,white and blue. It is expected and as such is overdone. Passing a street island today there were at least 12 signs. All were in red,white and blue and everyone of the candidates names became lost in the jumble.

I noticed this also when going to the S.C. debates. McCain had a large yellow star in the center of his signs and because of this the attention was drawn towards it.

I know it seems "un-America" to think outside the box in this respect. However, perhaps a sign incorporating the Marines colors might lend you a sign that is both different and still patriotic.

[evilfunnystuff]

http://i42.tinypic.com/25owg01.gif

I like this 1.

I'd remove the word for also.

[JeNNiF00F00]

Use the darker blue so you have more contrast. I personally would get rid of the flag.

Think of the 3 second rule. A person generally will not look more than 3 seconds at an image/ad before becoming distracted. It may be even shorter than this if people are just driving by the signs. Simple/basic is better than cluttered.

[rancher89]

My 2 cents

simpler is better


some of the most memorable signs I've seen were either green, yellow or purple and the ones I liked the best were round......just saying.


I like the second version better as well, get rid of the "for." Get rid of the flag unless it is really important to you.

[t0rnado]

http://unelected.org/harvard/GlenBradley.jpg

[rancher89]

I like

[raystone]

I'm not sure how important catching the eye is. Drivers naturally notice yard signs and look past them without thinking about them. The point isn't to distract drivers, it's just to build up repetitive reinforcement of the idea that you're a serious candidate. Name recognition is what it's all about.

+1

[TCE]

I second getting rid of the flag. Make the font bigger and readjust. People are going to be drawn to the flag and that's it, you want them to see your name and move on. If they keep seeing it again and again and again, it looks like you're running a serious campaign. Notice how all of the U.S. Senators have VERY simple designs while all of the other candidates have all of these complicated messes for signs. Use their experience to your advantage, there is a reason U.S. Senate candidates put their signs a certain way, just copy their idea.

Getting rid of the "For" is also a good idea. Nobody is going to see it anyway.

[constituent]

hey, don't know if it's too late or what exactly you wanted to say, but here's a basic thing. of course all the rough spots could be fixed, but just throw your message on there and use it if you don't come up with something else.


http://i39.tinypic.com/2cqy1ap.jpg




good luck. :)