I have seen a lot of charity communications recently. On trains, bus shelters, cross tracks, on-line and even mailings - and there have been several occasions where I have had to ask the question 'Was this tested in its final format and media before it was produced'?
Obviously by that question, I think the answer is in some cases NO - otherwise I would assert that the design, the fonts, the colours used would have been very different. Equally I know that for some media it is easier to do than others i.e. place your mocked up press ad in an actual newspaper to see how it looks. But my point is more about putting yourself in your supporters shoes and trying to view your communication from their perspective - quite literally view it.
So, what is the value of a piece of a communication if people are not able to fully engage with the piece being displayed because they can't read it without standing right on top of it, or with letter copy without squinting or holding it in front of your face? I would answer, in some cases not as much as the cost of it.
Of course everything looks lovely on the screen of a mac - and I know how much time and work goes into producing it - but the shame is more that that work comes to nothing if it doesn't have the impact it could of had in its chosen execution.
You then have to wonder about the assessment of this creative if it fails... are you disregarding something because the delivery and execution of that message is at fault?
And from a potential supporter perspective - if something is difficult to engage with i.e. read, or even see, your work isn't seen, and people won't be able to do what you are asking them to and then doesn't it just become more communications 'noise' in an already noisy market place.
And doesn't that make all of our jobs more difficult in the long run?
Anyway, it is just something to think about the next time you are getting some creative produced.
Thanks as ever for stopping by.
