Friday, August 27, 2010

Sign Spotting.

I wonder if Mike will do another post on Worcester's political signs.  If he does, I'm curious to see what he will say about Paul Franco's sign:
Does he not want to be seen at night?  Is he playing off the Army's black and gold color scheme?  This picture was taken at high noon, with a few afternoon shadows creeping towards the sign.  I wonder how it will look at night.
-----
Sadly, my favorite mixed message picture is no more.  
Apparently someone has bought this abandoned house and doing some improvements, which is great.  Boarded up houses are never fun, even when they have political signs on the front lawn.

3 comments:

Worcester said...

I think that the Franco signs are the coolest looking signs out there.

Smith has these huge signs that say "Look at Me, Look at Me" But everyone I talk to says that they can't stand him. What is up with that?

Sean Dacey said...

They do look good, but they aren't very visible at night. Plus, the font is a little on the small size.

Jim Gonyea said...

You're absolutely right about the Franco signs. They're okay for the daytime, but you wouldn't see it at night. That means that fifty percent of the sign budget was wasted. In a political campaign you have to maximize the face time with the voters either in person or by written material. All signs should have two sides and be visible at all times of the day. Would be politicians really do need to learn the basics of a campaign.

And that Smith sign is amusing. Lawn signs are supposed to show support of a candidate, but a sign on abandoned or even public propery doesn't show support. It shows someone who can't find enough supporters for the signs they bought. In this case it does sort of advertise that a vote for Smith is a vote for abandoned houses. Subconscious messages are also very important in campaigns.