I think this is a really lovely piece of motion graphics design. The kinetic text in particular is witty and varied, the dynamism and movement, particularly in pseudo 3D, is superb, and the audio track builds the emotional impact (and Alan Johnson, unlike so many politicians, sounds like he believes in what he’s saying).
But what’s its purpose? Presumably it aims to be persuasive – to convince me of Alan Johnson’s position – and about this I’m less convinced.
I’ve watched it a few times now, maybe five or so, and I still can’t list the key arguments confidently. I think the dynamism and movement, beautiful as it is, doesn’t allow for clear chunking of the information. And the very sharp, tightly synchronized audio and kinetic text might – according to various theorists such as Richard Meyer – actually prevent me from absorbing the content. Research shows that it’s almost always better for text to summarise rather than literally replicate what’s being said.
But does that matter if the overall impact – the emotional response it elicits – is more important than key arguments? Possibly. Trouble is, I think the choice of vector style graphics, which can be so effective in infographic style, information heavy content presentation, doesn’t have a particularly emotional effect. This piece doesn’t contain much new or surprising information, as it’s basically a rather personal narrative piece. For this to make an impact on me I want to see Alan Johnson as a postman, his children, jobs…real people, not illustrations and abstractions.
Like I said, I really like this. But in my view there’s a mismatch of style and purpose.