Awful Campaign Photos
Don’t Use Your Own Pictures
By Daniel Muniz

In every campaign season, it is amazing how at the number of candidates who use terrible photographs of themselves on their yard signs and in their campaign literature. Unless you are photogenic or have the appearance of a model, it simply doesn’t work.

As for photos in yard signs, most campaigns run on tight budgets so there usually isn’t enough money to purchase signs of the right size. As a result, there is very limited real estate on a smaller sign but lots of candidates still go ahead and plaster their picture on it which hogs up about a third of the space.

And worse, some candidates try to insert their entire political platform on the yard sign. Even if you have 20/20 vision, it is practically impossible to read much of a yard sign, especially from a distance. And if you are driving by it there is only a few seconds available to catch the message, provided it is coherent enough to understand.

As a result, yard signs should only have the candidate’s name and what they are running for. And if and only if there is still room available, then add a snappy innocuous one-line theme like:

● Integrity Still Counts
● Honesty is My Policy
● The Taxpayer’s Best Friend
● No New Taxes and I Mean It

Again, there are candidates who aren’t satisfied with only using a few words. Too many of them give in to the temptation of pontificating a political philosophy or some muddled jabber on a yard sign. Consequently, this overload doesn’t work because a message on a campaign sign has to be clear, concise, and memorable.

As for the photographs, that too is a loser.

Regardless of how unfortunate it is, we live in a commercialized society that is obsessed with glamour. Right or wrong, glamour and style saturates our culture and our entertainment. Cheerleaders and dance teams have an obvious image and stage presence even though they perform to a family friendly audience. The same goes with the press.

In today’s environment, it is almost as though broadcast news has a quota for perky blondes to report the news or the weather. In my hometown, I often wonder if there really are so many beautiful slender women majoring in meteorology in college. Or is it that attractive women only read from a teleprompter?

Overall, it is a harsh reality that we as a society place too much emphasis on physical appearance but we still cannot ignore its presence.

Campaigns have to adhere to a simple process, which is; accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative.

Most politicians are not photogenic enough to warrant their picture plastered across town. And for some, it could actually be a liability. Although such an assertion implies that we may be too shallow to allow physical appearance to trump over issues and values, but that is not necessarily the case. Rather, it is simply doing the best at making a first impression and then building on that.

The politicians who are photogenic have allowed it to become a tremendous asset. In Texas, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson has an attractive animated physical appearance. Some of her dour critics deride her cheerleader figure but the Senator had done well to let a good smile work for her. The same goes with Massachusetts’s governor, Mitt Romney. He too has a good physique and is photogenic which has helped build good first impression.

But what I just listed are the exceptions. It doesn’t work for the rest of us who don’t look like contestants for a reality show.

Accordingly, if a candidate doesn’t have the star quality to publicize his image on billboards or yard signs, then the proper place for a photograph of him or herself is in the campaign literature. Again, I have seen candidates who think that they are doing a photo-shoot for Cosmopolitan or GQ Magazine by hogging up a huge chunk of the literature. A photo has to be put in its right size and proper perspective. Taste and balance have to come into play especially when the goal is to offer the depiction of a candidate who is warm and trustworthy.

My favorite campaign piece was a brochure of Steve Stockman before he defeated Congressman Jack Brooks. Stockman had a sharp photograph that featured him with a confident appearance and a soft glow. The literature piece also had a picture of his opponent that was taken from a newspaper and then photocopied. That process gave Jack Brooks a harsh weatherworn look in that he almost resembled Dr. Death, Jack Kervorkian. That combination resulted in a dramatic photographic compare and contrast.

In addition, I have always liked family photographs in campaign brochures because it demonstrates that a candidate is also one of us, especially when little children are present. Holding a baby and having the family dog (or borrowing one) in a picture scores bonus points because it projects a sense of warmth.

Photographs of the candidate do not have to be entirely avoided but they do have to be put in its proper place. Campaigns should avoid the overexposure of a terrible photograph or of candidates who are not photogenic. Substance is far more important than image but image shouldn’t be detracting from the substance.

Any opinions or views expressed herein belong solely to the author and does not represent any employer, organization, political party, governmental agency, or any other entity and do not necessarily reflect the views of the site owner or its participants.