Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Infographics: sharing, previews, & feedack

Thank you so much guys!
Sent for revision.

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

My first re-draft changing the text:

Any thoughts that come to mind?

Ali Scarlett has reacted to this post.
Ali Scarlett
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

Yeah, I really like it.

Some quick thoughts:

  • There's a lot of information—possibly "too much": I think that the infographic would be more valuable as a supplement to the site's content, simply illustrating the dynamics of what's going on. Then, the rest can be explained in a written form above and/or below the infographic. This infographic feels like it tries to say it all, which can complicate one's understanding of the concept.
  • I love the new definition written below the title: much more encompassing than mine
  • The "give" could be better served simplified: saying that the "give" could be anything dives a little too deep into the "advanced" territory. Keeping the exchanges material (as is already done with a material give—a money bag) and then explaining later how other social exchange manipulations can be done might help prevent new readers from going into mental overload
  • I love how you replaced "blah, blah, blah" in the speech bubble: the "cost me a fortune" was an added element I wasn't expecting that was a nice surprise to read. That one added sentence could be great for raising one's emotional and social intelligence further to keep an eye out for manipulators, even if only slightly.
  • Inconsistencies lead to confusion: in Step 1 you call the manipulator's value a "give". Then, in Step 3, you call it "help". For comprehension, it might be better to keep it as a "give".
  • I like the red: unexpected given the color theme of this website. Yet, it made the infographic more eye-popping which made it more engaging to read for me.

For comprehension, small details might make a big difference here

I think that in Step 2—where the credit inflating happens—they should not be in the middle of the exchange.

Better, might be if in Steps 1 and 2 the manipulator is still holding the bag, the victim is undecided (the victim's arms are at his sides), and the manipulator is using credit-inflating to sell the victim on this "great" value. That way:

  • There's less confusion as to why the victim isn't questioning holding a bag that clearly just got bigger (= a bit odd that the victim's arms are open, ready to receive the bag in Step 1 and then, when the bag grows twice as big, he continues to reach for the bag with that same wide smile on his face—seemingly without a care in the world. In the end, it helps illustrate the consequences of being a naïve social marketer quite well, but doesn't illustrate the dynamics of credit-inflating in an exchange as well, which is the ultimate goal of this infographic)
  • The difference in the size of the bag would be naturally better emphasized and highlighted (= and, that's because along with the addition of a speech bubble, the bag's size would be the only thing that would change between Steps 1 and 2)

A few other thoughts here as well, I'll try to get them out in another post when I have more time later.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano

Thank you so much, Ali!!

Will try to implement at least some of the new round of feedback -not as easy since now I accepted the delivery and all changes are up to me :)-.

Overall, I would estimate that a good 80% of this infographic is from your own creative imagination.

And even this one:

Quote from Ali Scarlett on June 13, 2021, 7:17 pm
  • I love how you replaced "blah, blah, blah" in the speech bubble: the "cost me a fortune" was an added element I wasn't expecting that was a nice surprise to read. That one added sentence could be great for raising one's emotional and social intelligence further to keep an eye out for manipulators, even if only slightly.

More like "I love how you came up with that", since it was originally your idea :).

The red color, that was on Matthew's feedback, as I liked how he pointed out that a negative, generally value-taking behavior should be more appropriately depicted in red.
Plus, it gives a vibe of "don't do it" and might also subconsciously improved people's learning with the association of "red flag when you see this behavior".

And finally, the manipulator looking meaner was "The_Critic" idea, which also improved the overall feel a lot.

Ali Scarlett and Matthew Whitewood have reacted to this post.
Ali ScarlettMatthew Whitewood
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

Yea, great point on Matthew and The_Critic's feedback as well, they really raised the infographic's overall value to feel more PU worthy.

Here's the rest of my feedback on this most recent design:

  • (Possibly) connect the debt to the situation instead of the individual: I think that making the debt chain connect to the bag instead of the victim would be more intuitive and further underline that the issue isn't with the people, it's with the social exchange manipulations caused by the people. And, by using erasing techniques to get rid of the debt attached to the give (the bag), that person will be fine.

He Owns You: Things Get a Bit Confusing (for Me)

The infographic works as more than a step-by-step walkthrough, it works as a story. So, when the victim had been given the bag and then the bag was suddenly with the manipulator again, I was confused. It seemed as if, for some reason, the manipulator had taken the bag back and was willing to accept a smaller give (the smaller bag being handed to him) instead.

Then, I realized what was being communicated here. Those bags in Step 4 are being given by the victim. So, here's an idea (as well as a quick and easy solution):

  • Make the victim's give green!: I really believe that by making the victim's give (bag) green, it underlines that he's the victim giving back real value (that he didn't inflate) equal to size of the manipulator's inflated value. Even better, it helps the reader's eye distinguish between the manipulator's give and the victim's give. And, finally, the icing on the cake, the red v.s. green dichotomy shows that the manipulator's give was antisocial, value-taking behavior while the naïve victim still (unknowingly) engaged in pro-social behavior with the manipulator—leaving him with the shorter end of the stick (which points back to Matthew's feedback on strategic color-usage).

Making the victim's give in Step 4 green will even help underline that he truly lost out in Step 5, having no more of his hard-earned value left to give.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano

Thank you so much, Ali!

Will come back to this as soon as I have a 30 minutes to add these final touches.

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?