Redesigning a Public Health Campaign Poster Under a Late Budget Cut
A municipal health department commissioned a design studio to produce a poster campaign promoting vaccination among adults over 60. The original brief specified three poster variants (A2 format, full color, photographic imagery) for distribution in clinics, pharmacies, and bus shelters, with a total production budget of BRL 48,000 and a four-week timeline. Two weeks in, the department announces a 40% budget cut and a one-week deadline reduction, and also requires that all materials be accessible to low-vision users. The studio has already produced two photographic variants and commissioned a photo shoot for the third. The client insists on keeping all three variants and the photographic approach. The design team must decide how to respond while preserving campaign effectiveness and accessibility.
1. As the lead designer, how should you negotiate scope and format with the client? Justify your decision with reference to design process and accessibility principles.
Read the worked answer
The team should not simply absorb the cut by reducing quality. First, document the impact: with 60% of the budget and three weeks, the photo shoot for variant C cannot be completed at the contracted standard. Second, propose a re-scoped solution: keep three variants but replace the third photographic variant with a typographic/illustrative poster reusing approved assets, reducing cost and time without dropping a variant. Third, address accessibility explicitly: specify minimum body text size (e.g., 14 pt print equivalent), high contrast ratios (at least 4.5:1 for body text), sans-serif typefaces, and avoid text over busy photo backgrounds. This is a legitimate design decision, not a compromise of the brief, because accessibility was a new mandatory requirement. Present a revised schedule and budget table, and ask the client to sign off on the trade-off (fewer custom photos vs. three variants). The reasoning rests on the principle that constraints should be made visible and negotiated, not hidden.
2. The client insists that the photographic approach is essential to emotional appeal. How do you evaluate this claim and what evidence would you present?
Read the worked answer
Evaluate the claim against the campaign objective (vaccination uptake among 60+), not against taste. Evidence to gather: (1) legibility testing of the two existing photographic variants with older adults, measuring comprehension of the call to action at bus-shelter viewing distance; (2) contrast measurement of text over the photos; (3) comparison with a typographic mock-up on the same message. If photo variants score lower on comprehension or fail contrast, the claim is empirically weak for this audience. If they score well, retain photos for variants A and B and use the typographic version only for C, preserving emotional appeal where budget allows. The designer should frame the discussion around audience outcomes and accessibility compliance, present the test data, and offer a hybrid option rather than a binary yes/no. This demonstrates user-centered evaluation instead of deferring to client preference alone.