On January 24, 2008 I blogged about the use of photography in the public relations world. The focus of that blog was on a story I read in the Toronto Star about yet another sad story of a “dangerous” pitbull. This story made front page news that day. I think it made the cover story because the photo that accompanied the story (the dog and its owner) was superb.
Now the same pitbull story is back in the news.
http://www.thestar.com/article/346232
BUT it lacked that one edge that helps drive the story home – it had no photograph. No visual cue to strike emotion in the reader. This is a very noticeable difference in the two stories. The first story the reader saw the picture before even reading the story. That leaves opportunities to decide what your thoughts are BEFORE reading the copy! Which leads me to my focus: photography makes things more newsworthy.
So take a note PR lads and lasses. If you want your news release, your event, your letterheads, your website or your WHATEVER to get noticed, it needs elements of design (or photography).
Daniel H. Pink wrote a book I love called ”A Whole New Mind”. It’s a great book on how the world is shifting. It’s shifting from the information age to the conceptual age and it’s shifting due to three things: Abundance, Automation and Asia. After it outlines why the world is shifting, it explains how we can adapt in six simple chapters. The first way we can adapt is through… you got it, design.
I think public relations is at a folly due to abundance. There is so much of everything now. We live in a sea of worthless information floating around on-line, in our mail boxes and in our newspapers and magazines. Some practitioners use design well, others do not. (Hence the subtitle of my blog: “just because you have an index finger, doesn’t mean you should take photos”)
One company that uses photography well is Fayeclack Communications Inc. in Mississauga. Their website is www.fayeclack.com and they’re an agency with a focus on food. Their intro presentation is very well done (except it avoids the rule of 3s – they give four examples). Photos are scattered throughout their site with a very classy presentation. Every dish you see on their site drives home the complexity in which they know food. I’ve never heard of any of those dishes and here they have stunning photos of them.
On the other hand, design elements like in Maverick PR doesn’t tickle my creative bone. Static, stock photography shots of generic business men and women isn’t design. It’s adding photos because “we don’t have any yet”. It’s that type of design that doesn’t impress me.
It’s easy to see one piece of design and say it’s great without context. Once you compare what some companies are doing versus other companies, then you’ll see who has the eye for design. If it came down to me choosing either A or B and it was a deadlock tie, I’d choose the one that’s the prettiest to look at. Wouldn’t you?
