To
be sure America, we have a cavalcade of presidential wannabes for the 2016
election. And because the GOP field is much thicker than the Dems, I will
review GOP branding first.
This
collection does not include EVERY candidate. Merely those front- and pseudo-front-runners, by today's poll, who have branding that could be found.
DONALD
TRUMP
TRUMP
– MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
Only
the Trumpster, Mr. Sideshow, the bullying narcissist with a bad comb-over and
man makeup, would believe that in politics as in business that: His name IS
his brand. Not only that, but he is so decidedly conservative GOP (red) that he
appears to be the only candidate (thus far) who has no blue in his brand. And
although his exclamation mark is much smaller than Jeb!, its incongruous
application at the end of the slogan seems apt for the bloviating Donald. Mr.
Trump, you sir, are no graphic designer. “You’re fired!”
The muddled mess that was Carson’s brand was
an all-caps line in gold and blue with a “trying to be clever,” interpreted “A”
that was made up of flag pieces and the head of an eagle or is it an eagle
using signal flags? Whatever it is, the devil is in the details. And as this
element became too precious, the “A” began to disappear, leading the tag to
read: CARSON MERICA, and everyone wondering: “What the heck is that?”
Carson’s tagline: HEAL+INSPIRE+REVIVE is
absurdly funny in that two of the words seem to reference his medical abilities
directly. Why not: “AMERICA: THERE’S A DOCTOR IN THE HOUSE” or “CPR FOR AMERICA”
?
Enough consternation was created surrounding
the brand this summer that damage control was called and a new handle was
created. And that’s when the whole thing went ka-blooey. An Akron, Ohio
marketing company called Eleventy (really) was engaged to retool and what they
came up with was EPICALLY bad.
They went out of their way to use a slightly
different Extra Bold Sans, (I mean, they had to be paid for something right?) claiming
on their website that the Carson team wanted “cleaner” “updated color palette”
and “candidate’s entire name.”
They satisfied all of those requirements but went
decidedly overboard with the use of 4 different colors in their simple,
rectangular text layout. This creates no hierarchy and a good deal of visual
confusion, as the eye doesn’t know where to look. At first I thought this was
some sly, “inclusive,” visual device, as if to say, “Carson represents all of
America: black, brown, red, yellow and white,” except their “strategic use of
color” was black, brown, red and blue. So what is it for?
Aside from Eleventy broadly publicizing their
involvement on their own website, the story gained traction when professional
graphic designer Sagi Haviv of Chermayeff & Geismar & Haviv was quoted
in a Politico piece, later picked up by Bloomberg.com as praising it as “one of
the best” candidate logos saying it was, “…a sophisticated, well-executed,
purely typographical mark…” praising its bold san serif and justified layout
and color treatment.
The sophistication is lost on me. It would
win on readability grounds Mr. Haviv, if it were not for the “optical
confusion” of its 4 colors.
Well, either Mr. Haviv consulted or someone
else stepped in, because if you go on Carson’s site now you will find a new
color palette reduced (at least) to three colors and now it reads quieter,
though the palette usage still does not sing to me. It particularly does not work well on a black background because of how the red pops.
JEB
BUSH
Jeb!
Has been mocked for it ridiculous use of the exclamatory button. Jeb Bush
doesn’t think he needs a last name, but most recognize it’s strategic absence
as a way to deflect the poor post-presidential opinion of his brother George.
To
begin with the man is not even using his first name. He is technically running
on an acronym: J-E-B standing for John Ellis Bush. It's all very entertaining,
but not very helpful to his campaign.
Grade:
D
I
like the color and font that was chosen for his name, but I do not like the
2016 positioned above the name. That compliment not withstanding, I am utterly
confused as to the intended message of Ted Cruz’s patriotic icon. Does Ted Cruz
cry for America and this is what one of his tears looks like under the
microscope? Is this icon stolen from a “Save Water America” campaign? Or is it
an icon borrowed from the American Propane Company? Or is it the image of the
flames that would emerge from Ted Cruz were he on fire?
Grade:
F
MIKE HUCKABEE
The religious conservative tries to capture the
heartland with this Bank of America clone. The 4 emerging stars look like
something out of Candy Crush, cartoony and silly. His slogan, “FROM
HOPE TO HIGHER GROUND,” seems to be referencing Obama’s HOPE theme as though it
was laying the groundwork for Mike to rescue us from the approaching biblical
flood. HIGHER GROUND indeed!
Grade: C-
SCOTT
WALKER
The
Walker campaign had some brand coverage from general GOP suppliers to start. But when
his “official campaign logo” was later released it caused a bit of a kerfuffle
over what was viewed as illegal reference of an existing design owned by the
Atlanta-based America’s Best Contacts & Eyeglasses company.
It does seem
like it was co-opted there and slightly lengthened on the stripes to the right.
But upon closer inspection, a discerning eye can see that the stripe spacing
was made less equal (white to red) as the white spaces narrowed and also the
vertical white space was centered to the layout creating a more symmetrical
design.
Given those details it seems clear that there was an actual designer
involved and that he/she was very deliberate in altering the design away from
the ABC&E reference, giving less leeway for anyone asserting charges of plagiarism
or copyright infringement. But given that ABC&E’s logo bears no ®, that
threat would seem unmountable. Besides, the whole American flag and red white
and blue vernacular is always up for grabs in this shit show of patriotic
hubris. Though the subtext: “FOR AMERICA” seems a bit overkill.
The
clean symmetry and balance of the Walker flag and it’s tweaking to match the
thickness of the san serif caps of his name, coupled with its clever
replacement of the E, which the three red stripes succinctly imitate, make it
one of the more well-thought out logo solutions in the bunch.
CARLY
FIORINA
Carly
keeps it simple and decides, like Jeb and Hillary, that perhaps just the first
name is enough. It’s friendly, approachable and perhaps easier to remember.
Though Jeb and Hillary are trying to shed their family-baggage surnames, while
Carly is maybe trying to shed the ethnicity of her Italian heritage or worries that people will remember it from her disastrous HP tenure.
Her
presentation is in a dainty, lighter weight, all caps san serif that serves her
well for clarity, but may read “feminine.” And she buries a red, communist star
in the “A” of her name.
It
is interesting to note that her subtext is a humble and hopeful “FOR
PRESIDENT,” like Santorum, Pataki and Jindal, and not the simply arrogant
affirmative: “PRESIDENT,” like Perry and Graham.
RAND
PAUL
Here
we see a bold all caps italic font that is clearly progressive, or what I mean is: it
leans forward. The problem is, in the full name version, the 2016 is in a
different font and more italicized than the name, making for a disjointed mess.
He has also taken to using a first name only version, an unusual and I think
singular approach, that is confusing for any graphic designer, because it makes
us think of design idol Paul Rand, who designed the contemporary IBM, ABC and Westinghouse
logos (among other things). Paul Rand/Rand Paul? Or they would think it the
global policy think tank, RAND Corporation.
More
exasperating is the flame, vaguely mimicking the Statue of Liberty’s torch.
This may be more successful than Cruz’s teardrop effort, but still not
quite working right.
In
the shorter RAND version, the designer discovered that the negative space between A and N created a narrow inverted triangle, which gave him/her the handle for the
torch. But in the RAND PAUL version the torch element is shifted right, off the
triangle, losing the effect.
I
keep waiting for someone to riff him with a “Marco?” “Polo!” joke. Let us hope
he stays away from beaches and pools during his campaign. Exceedingly ballsy
move to have the candidate’s name appear in lowercase letters. The U.S. map as
a dot on the “i” validates the choice of lowercase in an odd way, though it is
a bit ill-advised for two reasons. First, from a distance one cannot be sure
what the “blob” actually is. I supposed the viewer is subtly rewarded and
tickled when he gets closer and sees the map. “Oh, I get it now. How clever.”
And second, this only represents the “lower 48,” where are Alaska and Hawaii?
The
slogan: A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is confusingly presented in all caps
Futura, AKA Renner sans for designer Paul Renner, is an art deco/Bauhaus era
font from 1927. Maybe he meant OLD AMERICAN CENTURY? Furthermore
Mr. Rubio, a “century” typically begins with a significant round number. So
if you were running for prez in the year 3000, maybe this would make some
sense.
Rubio’s
simple bumper sticker logo utilizes all caps in black, with a red star
separating his two names, similar to the old WAL*MART logo. The only problem
here is it may be mistaken for a line of clothing at MACY*S, or worse:
according to WIKI, “The five-pointed red star has often served since
about 1917 as a symbol of
communism.”
A
breath of fresh air, “Pataki” is presented in a clean, clear, lighter weight
vertical san serif and humbly tagged: “For President.” Apparently no year
required, perhaps saving it for reuse. What is confusing is the presentation of
the flag and what it might mean. Is there some subtext here? At least he does
not have Walker’s troubles. It is minimalistic at best. Is it a bar chart
showing Dems (blue) ½ stripe terribly behind Reps two full red stripes?
Incongruous.
Grade:
C+
BOBBYJINDAL
BOBBY
JINDAL FOR PRESIDENT, presents a clean, modern all caps message beneath a
jaunty red, white, and blue J. The J is barely flag-like but manages to deliver
all the raw elements and create some dynamic, faux-dimension. One must only
wonder as to the decision or rationale of 3 stars, and what looks to be 5
stripes. This entire package seemed to be executed cleanly, with no
questionable content.
It
was the additional marketing that bit Bobby in the ass. The campaign designed
what they thought was a benign “call to action” with the copy: TANNED. RESTED.
READY. JINDAL2016, –leaving the public to wonder about the oblique reference to
his ethnic complexion.
Further
negative reaction emerged in June 2015, when the Nixon Foundation tweeted a
1988 marketing scheme for Richard Nixon bearing almost the exact same copy.
Grade:
C / (D)
LINDSEY
GRAHAM
Mr.
Graham would most likely fail in capturing the Republican nomination based on
the fact that in schoolyard parlance, “He has a girl’s name!” Would Ford have
been a successful politician if he had run on his birth name: Leslie King? That was
a double whammy, a girls name and the word KING. President King? Nope, would
never work. It also doesn’t help Graham that he is not well liked by either party.
He
abandons LINDSEY and just goes with GRAHAM PRESIDENT, as if he wants to enjoy
the sound of it. The converging narrow triangles, with the abbreviated 16 is
vague, resembling the look of a mailbox sign.
Grade:
D
PERRY
PRESIDENT– notice only two words (he couldn’t think of a the third), alliterative,
succinct and affirmative, not “for” President. Perry dumbs it down for sure and
with a design wholly reminiscent of a baseball team logo. Maybe he meant: “Perry for
the Pirates.” Except the cap “P” which is oddly misshaped, and mostly obscured by
the zoom-up star, is barely recognizable as a “P.” The fuzzy mess is topped off
with a star straight out of central casting, albeit clip art stock.
Grade:
F
CHRIS
CHRISTIE
Unfortunately
the simplicity of CHRISTIE2016, while graphically solid and readable, comes off
as looking like a Class President poster for a senior girl named CHRISTIE. His
tagline, TELLING IT LIKE IT IS, does little to deflect from his brusque, bullying,
Jersey manner.
Grade:
C
RICK
SANTORUM
A
masculine, all caps approach here. The iconography that is the bald eagle confused
me. Maybe because it makes me think that this is a man running for Secretary of
the Interior.
Grade:
C-
