Hillary 2016 Logo
Out of context: Reply #12
- Started
- Last post
- 96 Responses
- nb1
I think it's fine. It meets the requirements (standard colours, etc) for a campaign logo and does a few other things.
Using just the H helps shift people to talking about "Hilary" instead of "Hilary Clinton". She wants us to think of her as a regular American, on a first-name basis. She also wants to stand on her own, not be seen as Billy's wife. I don't think many people talk about her that way, but America is a big country and a lot of people might see these simple things when they look.
The arrow represents moving forward (reading left to right) and also moving the party to the right, or rather towards the centre. That's a good place to be for a democratic candidate. The republican party has lost a lot of it's moderate members over the past years by promoting the Tea Party and other nut jobs. Moving to the centre might mean getting a few more votes.
Keep in mind that the Democrats are probably going to win the presidency again unless the Republicans have a massive change in their message or there is another major terrorist attack. So, this democratic primary is very likely going to decide the presidency. Of course, none of the candidates will admit to that, which makes this "moving the democrats to the centre" campaign a good strategy for Hillary.
I think the two vertical beams (of the H) also symbolize a separated country. The arrow implies that she's bringing the polarized country back together, as one strong pillar.
The arrow sticking out just past the H implies that her campaign is about more than her and more than right now. It's about the issues, the future of the country, etc.
I'm interested to see if anyone at Pentagram releases a statement about it, they usually do, right?
- The Hillary logo is horrible on so many conceivable levels, I don't even know where to begin.utopian
- I agree with utopian. It's horrible. A good campaign logo is inspiring on some basic level. This is just a typical, minimal effort from Pentagram that probablymg33
- took 10,000 hours to conceive.mg33
- 10,000 hours to conceive?
Are you kidding us?utopian - Thank goodness nobody gives a fuck about the campaign logo though.monospaced
- utopian I said "probably took 10,000 to conceive.mg33
- sarcasm, monospaced?bklyndroobeki
- Just don't talk about Apple here okay!utopian
- 10000 hours is about 420 days lol. Most of us here could have done something more inspiring in 420 secondsset
- is it 4:20 already?Gnash
- ^Well, let's see 'em?!sarahfailin
- Feel free to pay meset
- How much is 420 seconds of your time worth, set?nb
- nb can i have you on my selling team?bklyndroobeki
- Ten fifty moniesset
- i'll put my neck out there and say I like it strong, timeless, simple and unexpected. Also - its engaging: we're all talking about it.timeless
- So let's all design really bad stuff so that people will talk about how bad it is. What a great direction design is heading in. /Sarcasm.iCanHazQBN
- Not sarcastic. I do believe people make decisions politically based on politics and really pay little attention to the logo. It's hillary. Her brand is theremonospaced
- Not sarcastic. I do believe people make decisions politically based on politics and really pay little attention to the logo. It's hillary. Her brand is theremonospaced
- And this logo doesn't change it. I truly believe in this case (presidential candidates) that logos don't matter to the voters.monospaced
- by saying the logo identity does not matter, why have one? For hundreds of thousands of people the logo will be the first touching point for Hillary.utopian
- And if her logo sucks, which it does. As well as lack of personality, humanity, and or strength, she will be perceived that way.utopian
- Fair enough.monospaced
- after that shepard fairey nonsense it's become pretty clear that the iconography indeed matters, at least to the young voting basegilgamush