The Elephant, or Donkey, in the Room
- Ryan Briggs
- Jul 27, 2016
- 3 min read
It’s 2016. Election Year. A time when America’s great Wheel of Democracy churns out a new (or not so new) batch of presidential candidates for the voting public to peruse, critique, and hitch their wagons to.
As both the Democratic and Republican National Conventions are in full swing and the divisive political rhetoric between the two sides reaches a fever pitch, there is certainly no shortage of articles, blogs, and social media posts dedicated to pontificating in the name of the Left or the Right. But rather than standing on soap box and preaching, let’s take a moment to step back and look not at the candidates themselves, or even the issues at hand, but at the branding behind their campaigns. More specifically; their logos.
Let’s start by looking back at where we were one year ago. The race for the White House was just ramping up, and the field of nominees was crowded with names that have since fallen by the wayside.
Bernie, Jeb, Rand, Rubio, Carson. All gone. After a year of debates, polls, primaries, and national conventions, we are left with the two heavyweights still standing. Here are the logos of the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees; Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
Hmm. They’re...underwhelming?
Now, to be fair, most political logos aren’t exactly top notch. They usually involve some variation of bold type with an American flag shoehorned into the design in some way. To make matters worse, both Hillary and Trump had a tough act to follow. The Obama campaign logo, designed by Chicago-based Sender LLC, was perhaps the best political campaign logo ever created. It was simple, elegant, and instantly recognizable. It became the driving force behind a true powerhouse of a brand; a brand that the Obama campaign rode with great effectiveness all the way to the White House. But I can’t help but think, in looking at the logos of this year’s candidates, that something is missing.
Hillary’s logo, designed by Michael Beirut, looks like it’s trying to say something, but errs on the side of being too simplistic. It’s as if Beirut had one idea, took one stab at it, and called it a day. And while the arrow does imply the forward-looking progressivism of the Democratic platform, it could also imply, in the words of David Carson, “Hospital on the right, got it.” It feels sterile, detached, and lacking in both a personality and a clear message.
The Trump/Pence logo doesn’t fair much better. But honestly, what can be said about this logo that hasn’t been said already? It was the subject of so much Internet ridicule that the T-P letterform was dropped from it entirely after only one day. Now we’re left with just the simple type of the candidates’ names and the campaign slogan. Exciting!
Ultimately, neither of these logos is going to win or lose the election for their respective candidates. If the history of politics has taught us anything, it’s that people vote according to their passions, and neither logo is especially effective at tapping into the passions of the voters the candidates hope to attract. Is this failure to brand themselves and communicate effectively with their constituents another indication that our political candidates are out of touch with the average American voter? Maybe. But it certainly indicates, especially when compared to the success of the Obama logo, the power of effective design, and the opportunity lost when design is not so effective.
Comments