Do lawn signs advertising a politician’s candidacy have any impact whatsoever on election day? Personally, I’m numbed to their messaging, or lack thereof.
The signs themselves are almost universally generic and forgettable. A candidate’s name is usually printed in boldface. Sometimes the sign describes the sought-after office position in a smaller font. Red signs connote Republicans; blue is for democrat; green or brown is for some third party long-shot. But color is not the true indicator of party affiliation that it used to be.
Logos–those clever graphics and insignias used to convey a candidate’s brand–are almost always avoided by politicians. I hardly ever see signs adorned with elephants or donkeys anymore. I suppose there’s too much at stake in risking alienating independent or undecided voters or accidently using a symbol implying a prediliction for witchcraft. Sometimes a Republican’s sign will include a tiny star–a nod to their military background, patriotism, preference for colonialism, affinity for space, or whatnot. By in large, campaigns are either too conservative or not clever enough to create a logo.
It’s a shame because logos can work really well for politicians. Remember Obama’s ubiquitous red, white, and blue “O” logo? A rising sun? A hopeful, optimistic America? Beats me. The mark was pretty lame. Almost as bad as Gap’s recent lousy re-branding attempt. But no matter. It was different and therefore memorable. McCain, on the other hand, went with a confusing blue-sign-with-generic-Republican-military-star combo and handily lost the election.
At best, a political lawn sign can convey a vague announcement of someone’s candidacy for something. Perhaps that’s enough for the lowly lawn sign to do the trick.
Of course, if one sign effectively announces a candidacy, it stands to reason fifty signs posted per suburban block would be fifty times more effective, right? After all, any advertiser worth their salt knows repetition is next to godliness, right?
Unfortunately, lawn signs are another case where more is less as candidates try to outdo each other to see who can plaster a neighborhood with the most signs. It’s a stalemate of mutually assured destruction: Competing campaigns drain their budgets as they litter the landscape with a blurry sea of colorful cardboard largely ignored by commuters and other passersby.
And what about our neighbors who actually choose to post political lawn signs in their front yard? I say this: Free speech is awesome, but we already know who you vote for, and you’re not changing anyone’s mind. Let it go.
I long for a post-lawn-sign era where candidates spend less time and money wallpapering the green spaces between my home and the grocery store, and more time debating each other and discussing issues and the merits of their candidacy. An October without lawn signs: Hope I can believe in.
Political lawn signs: an obsolete medium?
Do lawn signs advertising a politician’s candidacy have any impact whatsoever on election day? Personally, I’m numbed to their messaging, or lack thereof.
The signs themselves are almost universally generic and forgettable. A candidate’s name is usually printed in boldface. Sometimes the sign describes the sought-after office position in a smaller font. Red signs connote Republicans; blue is for democrat; green or brown is for some third party long-shot. But color is not the true indicator of party affiliation that it used to be.
Logos–those clever graphics and insignias used to convey a candidate’s brand–are almost always avoided by politicians. I hardly ever see signs adorned with elephants or donkeys anymore. I suppose there’s too much at stake in risking alienating independent or undecided voters or accidently using a symbol implying a prediliction for witchcraft. Sometimes a Republican’s sign will include a tiny star–a nod to their military background, patriotism, preference for colonialism, affinity for space, or whatnot. By in large, campaigns are either too conservative or not clever enough to create a logo.
It’s a shame because logos can work really well for politicians. Remember Obama’s ubiquitous red, white, and blue “O” logo? A rising sun? A hopeful, optimistic America? Beats me. The mark was pretty lame. Almost as bad as Gap’s recent lousy re-branding attempt. But no matter. It was different and therefore memorable. McCain, on the other hand, went with a confusing blue-sign-with-generic-Republican-military-star combo and handily lost the election.
At best, a political lawn sign can convey a vague announcement of someone’s candidacy for something. Perhaps that’s enough for the lowly lawn sign to do the trick.
Of course, if one sign effectively announces a candidacy, it stands to reason fifty signs posted per suburban block would be fifty times more effective, right? After all, any advertiser worth their salt knows repetition is next to godliness, right?
Unfortunately, lawn signs are another case where more is less as candidates try to outdo each other to see who can plaster a neighborhood with the most signs. It’s a stalemate of mutually assured destruction: Competing campaigns drain their budgets as they litter the landscape with a blurry sea of colorful cardboard largely ignored by commuters and other passersby.
And what about our neighbors who actually choose to post political lawn signs in their front yard? I say this: Free speech is awesome, but we already know who you vote for, and you’re not changing anyone’s mind. Let it go.
I long for a post-lawn-sign era where candidates spend less time and money wallpapering the green spaces between my home and the grocery store, and more time debating each other and discussing issues and the merits of their candidacy. An October without lawn signs: Hope I can believe in.