Progressive Democrats are thrilled to see Grayson and Weiner out there loud and proud. People voted for change. Weiner and Grayson are standing for change; they are turning hope into reality. That is the Progressive Promise.
They stand out because they understand the value of clarity. They understand the impact of brevity. However, there are plenty of good progressive candidates and incumbents for us to support. Unfortunately, not all of them have Weiner or Grayson's delivery. We only hear about these other progressives when a local promoter brings them to our attention.
Before we can learn about them, we have to be convinced that is worth our time. Headlines can only do so much. We need a better way to identify Progressives. To help promoters raise the profile of these progressives, I've developed a simple branding campaign anyone can use to help reinforce an unmistakable Progressive brand. Weiner and Grayson are not shying away from this label. We shouldn't either. Follow me below the fold for a discussion of how to use the branding element effectively.
I'm going to deconstruct the perceptual processing of the text and walk you through it in slow motion. In reality, what I'm going to describe happens in less than a second. Stepping through it gives you a good example of how Luntz and other wordsmiths work like a magician saying "pick a card, any card" when they are really leading you to pick the one they want you to pick. It's fast, it's subtle but very effective.
I wanted something simple enough anyone could use it, even if they are not a graphic designer. No special software is needed because the elements are all text. Any one of the designs could be developed using a word processing application like MS Word. I also wanted something that was as obvious as it was distinctive.
The eye is naturally drawn to contrast, so the red and black stand out. The eye starts on the red text. The words "Standing", and "For" are lined up vertically over the first name of each candidate. The eye starts at the top and reads down so the first pass in this case is read as "Standing for Donna."
Three different colors are used to help the viewer create three separate messages. "Standing for Donna" engages the viewer. It is active. It is personal. It is affirmative. This raises a question. Donna who? The name in black text answers that. This leads to why? "Donna Edwards" answers the first question, but there is something different here. One letter is slightly different. There is a Blue letter in the candidate's name. That's because they are a Democrat.
The blue letter allows the viewer to CHANGE the context and see the new word -- CHANGE. The blue "Change" is on the vertical to reinforce the concept of CHANGE, but that message is incomplete. This forces the viewer to engage with the text and make sense out of it. At this point, the viewer is already committed to decoding the text, so they will pause. The next pass starts again in the Red text but leads to "Standing For...Change."
In a fraction of the time it took to explain it, the full message gleaned by the viewer becomes:
"We are Standing for Donna.
Donna who?
Donna Edwards.
Why?
Donna Edwards is Standing For Change.
What kind of change?
Red to Blue."
The message is clear. If you are looking for an agent of change this is who you want. It is easy to imagine how this can be used for fundraising campaigns -- especially where promoters want to introduce their candidate to a wider audience. The benefit of the branding element is it identifies the candidate as a Progressive even before the viewer starts reading the information provided. This is good because it is clear, open and honest. Nobody is trying to hide anything. People appreciate that.
The treatment also translates well into print media. Collateral material can also use this branding element. It would work well on t-shirts, banners, or signs. "Standing For Change" also works well in radio ads and TV spots. The final line is always the same, "Jim McDermott...Standing for Change."
Lather, rinse, repeat.
There is a reason CHANGE is in Blue. Here a subliminal point is made. In the final message we are identifying the type of change we are seeking. We are going from Red to Blue. That is the political goal. We are not interested in just geting more Democrats. We already did that. Now we want BETTER Democrats. We delivered our end of the bargain. Now the DCCC, the DNC, and the DSCC are crying because money has dried up. Well, that's because after we gave them the majority then sought in the House, leadership welched on their promise of "no more blank checks." After we delivered them a solid, veto proof, filibuster proof majority in the Senate along with the White House, we got the spectacle of the Baucus Caucus.
Some have tried to defend the spinelessness of Democrats in general and Blue Dogs in particular by saying they are in Red or trending Red districts. However, there are several Blue Dogs who ran unopposed. What is their excuse? The fact is, Harry Reid made a big display of setting the tone early with his "I don't work for Obama" meme. Going for anyone because they are a Democrat is a flawed strategy. That is the Lieberman Solution. We can do better.
We didn't work for change only to deliver a new flavor of gridlock. We worked for change because that is what we expected. That is the Progressive Promise. Going forward, the Democrats need to make a decision... are they going to play to their base or not? We are the base. We are predominantly progressive, especially the most loyal parts of the base.
The Republic Party knows that and has been unrelenting in their efforts to scare people away from openly proclaiming that. Until Grayson and Weiner came along, they were largely successful. Those days are over. They need to get the memo. Standing for change is what the people want.