Tuesday, December 23, 2008
PowerPoint, Propaganda, and You
This is Your Brain on PowerPoint. Our brains have 2 lobes. Loosely speaking, the left handles data, facts, and analysis. The right handles emotions, art, and intuition.
When it comes to experiencing a PowerPoint presentation, there's only so much your brain can process. You can either listen to a presenter speak, or you can try to read what you seen on the screen.
If you try to do both at the same time, you absorb less. And you become irritated with the presenter.
The 2008 vogue. We're seeing more PowerPoint slides with simple images and minimal words. In a way, these slides remind you of a child's book.
Simple graphics. Big words. Few words.
Refreshing, yes?
Sure. But there's a problem.
The 2009 backlash. Let the backlash against the backlash begin! The current PowerPoint design fashion vogue is overly simplistic, and panders almost completely to the right side of the brain. Since one of our chief presentation objectives is to persuade, why is this a problem?
Using only right brain techniques to persuade is emotionally manipulative. Oh, it's highly effective, all right, but it's propaganda, nonetheless! Appealing only to the right side of the brain is less than truthful -- it lies by omission of key facts.
Audiences are getting more savvy. We're getting more suspicious. We're asking harder questions. We're tired of lying, half-truths, and crass emotional manipulation by corporate leaders, politicians, and news media outlets.
Those of us who are sentient realize that the simple and compelling imagery we see in corporate PowerPoint presentations, on TV ads, and elsewhere in the media aren't rational. Many people are beginning to resent the oversimplification. Tired of being treated like children, we're lashing back against these heavy handed attempts at brainwashing.
"Propaganda Bingo" is long overdue. It's time we started screaming out "Glittering Generality" or "False dilemma" and so forth when our leaders start blatantly using propaganda techniques in meetings, PowerPoint presentations, and press conferences. After all, we played Buzzword Bingo in the 1990's: why not upgrade to "Propaganda Bingo" in 2009?
The PowerPoint Propaganda Backlash is just one important reason to mix it up a little in your next PowerPoint presentation. Compelling imagery can help you make an emotional and persuasive case: but intelligent people will also require data and analysis for their decision making process. You’ll want to use persuade with right-brain techniques -- and also give the left brain something deeper to analyze.
Social media has also made "talking back" popular. People are becoming accustomed to criticizing presentation techniques and content on Twitter backchannels. They're creating and commenting on blogs, and voting on Digg or StumbleUpon. Today's audience isn't quietly and politely absorbing canned corporate and political propaganda: they're getting accustomed to talking back and creating their own content.
You can feel, see, and hear the pendulum swinging all around you!
This is Your Brain on PowerPoint. Our brains have 2 lobes. Loosely speaking, the left handles data, facts, and analysis. The right handles emotions, art, and intuition.
When it comes to experiencing a PowerPoint presentation, there's only so much your brain can process. You can either listen to a presenter speak, or you can try to read what you seen on the screen.
If you try to do both at the same time, you absorb less. And you become irritated with the presenter.
That's why we’re experiencing something of a fashion backlash against overly complicated, bullet-laden slides. They aren't effective. And they annoy people.
The 2008 vogue. We're seeing more PowerPoint slides with simple images and minimal words. In a way, these slides remind you of a child's book.
Simple graphics. Big words. Few words.
Refreshing, yes?
Sure. But there's a problem.
You are not a child. Your brain demands more!
![Manon - décembre [2]](http://farm1.static.flickr.com/2/3600985_d340ed4323.jpg)
The 2009 backlash. Let the backlash against the backlash begin! The current PowerPoint design fashion vogue is overly simplistic, and panders almost completely to the right side of the brain. Since one of our chief presentation objectives is to persuade, why is this a problem?
Using only right brain techniques to persuade is emotionally manipulative. Oh, it's highly effective, all right, but it's propaganda, nonetheless! Appealing only to the right side of the brain is less than truthful -- it lies by omission of key facts.
Audiences are getting more savvy. We're getting more suspicious. We're asking harder questions. We're tired of lying, half-truths, and crass emotional manipulation by corporate leaders, politicians, and news media outlets.
Those of us who are sentient realize that the simple and compelling imagery we see in corporate PowerPoint presentations, on TV ads, and elsewhere in the media aren't rational. Many people are beginning to resent the oversimplification. Tired of being treated like children, we're lashing back against these heavy handed attempts at brainwashing.
"Propaganda Bingo" is long overdue. It's time we started screaming out "Glittering Generality" or "False dilemma" and so forth when our leaders start blatantly using propaganda techniques in meetings, PowerPoint presentations, and press conferences. After all, we played Buzzword Bingo in the 1990's: why not upgrade to "Propaganda Bingo" in 2009?
The PowerPoint Propaganda Backlash is just one important reason to mix it up a little in your next PowerPoint presentation. Compelling imagery can help you make an emotional and persuasive case: but intelligent people will also require data and analysis for their decision making process. You’ll want to use persuade with right-brain techniques -- and also give the left brain something deeper to analyze.
Social media has also made "talking back" popular. People are becoming accustomed to criticizing presentation techniques and content on Twitter backchannels. They're creating and commenting on blogs, and voting on Digg or StumbleUpon. Today's audience isn't quietly and politely absorbing canned corporate and political propaganda: they're getting accustomed to talking back and creating their own content.
- 1987? Lotsa words. Lotsa bullet points.
- 2007? Few words. Simple pictures.
Or do you believe that audiences will be content to consume PowerPoint propaganda techniques for a while longer? How fast will the pendulum swing? Is 2009 the year of increased PowerPoint Propaganda Awareness?
Labels: design, PowerPoint Presentation, social media
¶ 12/23/2008 12:57:00 PM
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Thought-provoking post, Laura. I don't think that the answer is a middle-ground between lotsa bullets and simple pictures. We shouldn't go backwards. But I agree that something more is needed. I believe that presenters need to become better visual thinkers. That is, to be able to show concepts and ideas through drawings and diagrams. Duarte Design is good at this.
Olivia
Olivia
Olivia-
Thanks for the post, you make some very good points. My approach is (kind of) a hybrid.
Visual slides for the visual people
Speaking is the audio for the audio people
Handouts with loads of writing for the people that like to read - and as a bonus the kinaesthetic people have something to play with.
But you are right; some sort of middle ground is needed.
Craig
Thanks for the post, you make some very good points. My approach is (kind of) a hybrid.
Visual slides for the visual people
Speaking is the audio for the audio people
Handouts with loads of writing for the people that like to read - and as a bonus the kinaesthetic people have something to play with.
But you are right; some sort of middle ground is needed.
Craig
Thanks for the stimulating post Laura. I get your point but am not sure I totally agree about the backlash to simple slides? Here in the UK at least the traditional bullet point approach is still alive in well in many organisations.
I have seen the research that proves that it doesn't work but I have yet to see any evidence that the 2007/2008 doesn't work. Perhaps you can share some of your evidence with us. Happy New year and best wishes, Gavin
I have seen the research that proves that it doesn't work but I have yet to see any evidence that the 2007/2008 doesn't work. Perhaps you can share some of your evidence with us. Happy New year and best wishes, Gavin
I think we have to go back and read a very interesting and informative book written by Bob Horn in 1998, Visual Language: Global Communication for the 21st Century, after that, you will agree with me that Visual Language is the way to go with regards to PPt presentations or any type of presentations. Also I recommend reading all the material that have been written on Lane's relational presentation approach, I think the future of presentations lies in there. Happy 2009
Propaganda is extraordinarily effective at influencing groups of people. I don't dispute this. Who would?
But how effective will propaganda techniques continue to be in the age of social media? In an era of increased media decentralization?
What worked well in the mass media age may not work so well in this dawning era.
But how effective will propaganda techniques continue to be in the age of social media? In an era of increased media decentralization?
What worked well in the mass media age may not work so well in this dawning era.
Interesting and provocative article but there are some logical flaws in it.
First, images of course could be used to persuade people by enhancing the probability of using peripherial route to process the message (thats how I understand "propaganda" in this article). I fact they were, are and will be used this way. But there are a lot of images that show complicated relations and data (that couldnt be describe or shown with words or numbers only eg. infographics) rahter than serve simply as vehicles for emotions attacking our reptillian brain.
So not all images are "evil".
But even if such assumption was true the sort of solution proposed by author simply will not work.
Middle way eg. adding more words to images wont make the whole presentation more rational but most certainly it will make it more boring because PPT is primary visual medium not the teleprompter for the audience. It would be like tv show with actor reading a book for an hour.
One should rather turn of ppt and computer and "go analog".
But then again, one shouldnt forget that guys like Hitler came to power using words and traditional media rather than images and visual media. So to conclude: words, images, computers, slideware software are just tools, its how they are used what makes a difference.
First, images of course could be used to persuade people by enhancing the probability of using peripherial route to process the message (thats how I understand "propaganda" in this article). I fact they were, are and will be used this way. But there are a lot of images that show complicated relations and data (that couldnt be describe or shown with words or numbers only eg. infographics) rahter than serve simply as vehicles for emotions attacking our reptillian brain.
So not all images are "evil".
But even if such assumption was true the sort of solution proposed by author simply will not work.
Middle way eg. adding more words to images wont make the whole presentation more rational but most certainly it will make it more boring because PPT is primary visual medium not the teleprompter for the audience. It would be like tv show with actor reading a book for an hour.
One should rather turn of ppt and computer and "go analog".
But then again, one shouldnt forget that guys like Hitler came to power using words and traditional media rather than images and visual media. So to conclude: words, images, computers, slideware software are just tools, its how they are used what makes a difference.
So this is really late to join this conversation.... but isn't the whole left-brain right-brain meme based on discredited science - #FAnal?
Go on, google "Myth left brain right brain" ....
Why Sperry's research on people with ABI's got applied to healthy brains... bizarre.
Post a Comment
Go on, google "Myth left brain right brain" ....
Why Sperry's research on people with ABI's got applied to healthy brains... bizarre.
Links to this post:
<< Home
