Tuesday, April 14, 2015

The Logo War: Hillary's 'H'

What you see above is the Hillary campaign's logo. It has received a fairly (but not entirely) negative response. How come? Well, let's see:
However, some people like it:

Vox has graphic designers sprinkle their pixie dust of genius over Hillary's logo to revamp it! Maybe before going after Hillary, Vox should stop stealing 538's charts? Wild thought there--just spitballing . . .

In any event, here is the Hillary Alphabet:
Courtesy of Rick Wolf
Here's a list of all current presidential logos! Here's all past--with commentary!

So Does It Suck Or Not?
Before we go to the metal, here's the logo in its "natural habitat:"

This shows that it can be used with text and is a little more impactful than just the giant red-and-blue H . . .  They also did a decent job of keeping the arrow-theme on their website.

So, okay--it's functional.

Here's the deal: As has been noted, a logo does a lot of different things and logos tend to look alike. Today it's hard to have a logo that looks like no one else's. Hillary's is perfectly competent. The Omnivore concludes that every roll-out has to have its share of people jumping on the mistakes made and trying to read them like tea-leaves to determine if the staff is competent.

Rolling out a presidential campaign is like the hardest project launch you could imagine: it has ad-campaigns, public speaking, travel, tons of campaign material, audio, video, and press-release components. Messaging is all-important--but so is branding.

In other words? There are going to be mistakes--and no choice would satisfy everyone. There's no message that doesn't have an implicated counter-message (if Hillary had chosen a gothic font: she's old! Oh, and she's snooty! If she went with a serrif'd font: she's optimized for print! Old. If she chose colors other than Red and Blue (and white): Doesn't Love America. No arrow? Static!).

So the answer is: the logo is about average.

No comments:

Post a Comment