1. Steve, I’m floored by our attention on the logos of the candidates (you are not the first and will not be the last). True, slogans used to rue the day (I like Ike!) and songs often resonate with voters (Born in the USA), but shouldn’t we be focused more on substance and quality and less on looks? It’s great for a gaff or two but even great logos don’t win (or keep) clients. in this particular election, a focus on the visual will raise issues of misogyny or ageism, especially where ‘she who shall remained unnamed’ is concerned. I would love to live in a land where intellectual discourse and ideas are what win elections. As marketers, it behooves us to lead the charge in changing the focus, no?

    • Liz – I totally agree with you on the relative importance of issues vs. appearance. But also, as a marketer, I have a high sensitivity to all things messaging – logo, tagline, clarity of thought and expression. Probably an inordinate interest, but that’s part of what makes a marketer a marketer! Logos won’t win any election, but there’s really no excuse in this day and age for a clunker of a visual. Clarity includes look-feel.

    • Ron Mehringer says

      The power of a logo should not be underestimated. Bill Whittle does an excellent job of explaining this in his YouTube video “The Power & Danger of Iconography” ( His video is political in nature but I think there’s a lot that can be learned from it no matter which side of the aisle you’re on.

      As for Hillary’s logo, it’s certainly not attractive but does a pretty good job of conveying the idea of bringing both parties together and moving the country forward. Whether that’s believable or not is outside the scope of this discussion.

  2. Hi Steve,

    I couldn’t have said it any better. These logos lack both imagination and clarity (ha!). I get where Hillary’s logo was going, but they didn’t think it all the way through. She gets points for simplicity, but the execution was lacking. Maybe they need my blog post from today (how to avoid an epic marketing fail). And the Ted Cruz logo looks like a drop of blood to me like the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society’s logo. Overall, they just feel incredibly boring and weak.

    I agree with Liz’s point about the fact that the logos shouldn’t matter – the issues are far more important. But, the logo is a visual representation of their positioning and overall brand. And, with politics, it’s often about emotion and inspiring people to follow you. Logos help do that. But sadly, none of these logos make me want to “get on their bus.”

    It wasn’t Obama’s campaign logo that won him the election, but having such a powerful and easily recognizable image certainly didn’t hurt.

    • We’ll never get away from the link between substance and image, will we, Laura? Nor should we try. I love great logos, and memorable taglines – not in abstract, but when they accurately represent and present a brand. For instance, one of my all-time favorite taglines is FedEx’s 4-word masterpiece: The World On Time (and their logo is a masterpiece as well).

Speak Your Mind