Presidential Logos

I was recently contacted by the Hartford Courant to critique the 2008 presidential Logos. The reason for doing this is to bring out the mysteries of as to why some logos succeed and others don’t.

Here is my response.

Being that there are so many I will get specific about a few but might be general is some cases. Just at a quick glance you can tell what ones have more thought behind them and what ones stand out to be more professional, and in my opinion, get the message across as being the right candidate for the job. The things that I first look at are composition, typography, and color.

Composition:
Is the logo balanced? Are elements placed randomly or are they thought out?
Some the better ones are Hillary’s, Richardson’s, and Dodd’s. The things that make these compositions better are the elements are working together. All the elements may not be aligned in the center but the way they are placed balances the logo out. Take Richardson’s logo. You have the Bill on the left top and the President on the bottom left. because you have these two elements on opposite ends the logo becomes balanced. The star and stripes also help the logo in balancing.

Some of the not so good ones are Edwards, Brownback, and Hunter. Let’s take Edwards for example. His name is aligned left with a little star on the right with a green strip (which I’ll talk about in the color section). The left side is so heavy it looks like it will tip over. With Brownback, you have very little whitespace on the left and right side but a huge amount on the bottom. It looks like they were trying to slap his name on some generic template and get it out the door. This comes across as not being professional and someone not committed.

Typography:
This is one of the most important items that could make or break a good logo. If the typography is right then someone will look at it and probably think nothing of it but if it is wrong, then people will say it doesn’t look right and not be impressed with it. It’s not only the font they choose but it also is in the leading and kerning.

I think the ones that use a more tradition serif font put across the message that they are professional and have a commitment to the country.

I would have to say that Rudy’s is the winner in this. He has chosen a traditional font and the kerning has been thought out. Compare Rudy’s to Romney’s. There is so much space between the letters and the spacing is different between each letter. This is a perfect example of looking at Rudy’s and being okay with it and then looking at Romney’s and noticing something it not right with it.

Color:
Being that our colors and red, white, and blue it would only make sense to stick with those colors. It seems that all of the incorporated those colors but some added other colors. I don’t think it is bad to add them but for some it just hurts the logo. Going back to Edwards. Why did he add the green strip. It doesn’t make a lot of sense. It tells me that his logo wasn’t taken seriously and therefor his campaign isn’t serious. Also, with Huckabee. The yellow name is just a distraction and doesn’t fit in with the other colors. It would have given his name more emphasis if he would have put it in white.
One the other hand, McCain used a different color but it is a small amount and well placed that it helps his logo and doesn’t distract from what the message is.

There is one logo that stands out from the others and that would be Hunter’s. All of the other logos are simple and to the point where Hunter’s is too cluttered and says too much that it is distracting. There are too many elements competing for attention that it makes it cluttered.

It is also interesting the McCain and Rudy’s signs just have there name. It’s probably save to say that most people recognize there names and just by seeing the logo/sign know that they are running for president. To me these say a lot more than the others. It makes my feel like I know what is going on and that I don’t need to be told. Whether that will be successful in the end, I don’t know.

I also wanted to make mention of Obama’s logo. The icon that he uses is very distracting. When I looked at it, I took more time trying to figure out what it was the his message gets lost. Is it an “O” with stipes? Is it a field with a sun?

To sum it up, the best logos to me are Hillary’s, Richardson’s, Dodd’s, and Rudy’s. These logo show me that there was some thought put into them and that they are committed and professional. It is interesting to note I probably would not vote for either one of these candidates. It was interesting to disconnect myself from personal feeling as I looked at these logos. There were those that I wished would be better because I liked the candidate but were not.