2) But also try to make more of a semiotic/ideological analysis of the websites too –
- How/ in what ways do these HAIL the audience?
Looking at this paragraph from the website:
‘It’s our only formula. We don’t work to set methods, or produce ‘cookie-cutter’ design. Our work is as different and diverse as our clients and their business needs. We’re right with them throughout the process, an expert hand at every stage: from the development of a brief, to implementation. And with us there’s no jargon; we speak strategically but never incoherently.’
The designers are hailing people as potential clients. The designers are pointing out the similarities between themselves and potential clients. People are being hailed as equals and are being treated with respect. The website hails the audience as discerning clients.
- What signifiers tell you anything about the way the quality or ethos of the sites?
The type tells us that this team provide a very thorough service. They really want to get inside the brief and then provide a set of original ideas. The images show friendly people and the type that appears when you hover over one of the pictures explains each individuals talents.
- What basic assumptions (ideologies) do they make about the viewers/clients and how do you know/deduce this from the signifiers? Also a binary opposites analysis might help here
I think that the basic assumption has been made that the viewer/client is looking for a really thorough, high quality service with the guarantee of a
high quality outcome. It is mainly the type that shows me this. The images give proof that the design team can back up their words with actual outcomes.
The basic assumption is made that the viewer has a product or service that needs a logo or packaging design. The images of logos and packaging outcomes indicate this.
Binary opposites analysis
Bright – Dull
Text – Images
Brief – Outcome
Team – Client
Light – Dark
Expectation – Outcome
High quality – Low quality
Start – Finish
Claim – Proof
Left – Right
Talk – Listen
Idea – Outcome
Poor – Well-funded