Tuesday, November 06, 2012
When I told my artist friend Jeff Scher about Shareable Squares, the first thing he said was that faces were always better than images of anything else. That made immediate sense to me. There’s a reason why people put people’s faces next to quotes in social media, and it’s more than just celebrity. Michael DiBiasio had great success with his squares, and it wasn’t because everybody knew the young people in his family. Advertising also tells us that when people look directly into the camera, it’s even better. So keep that in mind as you experiment, and see if it improves your results.
The other thing Jeff and I talked about was size and scale. In early live television drama, directors like Sidney Lumet, Arthur Penn, and John Frankenheimer realized that a 21-inch TV screen was hardly the best medium for epic movie-making like “Lawrence of Arabia,” so they made frequent use of close-ups. If our work is going to be seen in a 403 x 403 pixel square, shouldn’t we think the same way? Shouldn’t we crop our photos as tightly as possible? I’ve already said that the type should be bold, so that’s in keeping with this idea.
On the other hand, if you can’t see the photo very well, then you’re more likely to click on it so that you can see it. Every click you get will score points with the Facebook computer algorithm. Personally my approach is to always go with the best content possible and trust that more people will like, share and comment about it.
From now on, whenever possible I’m going to try to get faces in my squares as large as possible. Try it yourself and let me know what kind of results you’re getting