{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.040690505548705305, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004932182490752158, 'mean_word_length': 4.927007299270073, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
It Costs a Lot to Look This Cheap: Preference for Low-Quality Graphic Design

Some 1,000 surveys were conducted on Amazon's MTurk, asking respondents to rate a high- and low-quality visual design, in this case a billboard ad. While most respondents preferred the high-quality ad, over a third opted for the low-quality design. Respondents who showed a preference for the low-quality design liked it for its “static” qualities, in that it was common, typical, average, and standard. Those who preferred the high-quality design liked it for its “dynamic” qualities, such that it was innovative, fascinating, novel, creative, and rich in elements. Older participants show a significant preference for the low-quality design. Implications of these findings for different types of visual communication are discussed.