The Politics of Logos, Part 2

by Gary Fearon, Creative Director

First of all, thanks to those of you who took the time to vote and/or comment in last week’s poll. If you were here, you’ll remember that we reviewed famous logos and then asked you which politician’s bumper sticker looked best to you, based purely on design. 

This week let’s review them one by one, and now that I have your assessments, I’ll include mine.

Gingrich has a logo that’s clean, sharp, and, well, safe. It takes no chances and therefore doesn’t trigger much in the way of reaction. On the plus side, it conveys a corporate, no-nonsense approach that capitalizes on the candidate’s unique nickname (BTW have you ever heard Newt’s real first name?), which is both a blessing and a curse. Being identifiable by your first name alone is worth its marketing weight in gold, but do you really project leadership if it means a tiny lizard?

On a design note, its left wing (no pun intended) flies up too close to his name and looks unbalanced. A little space would have given it room to breathe. (Incidentally, his first name is Newton.)

Kudos to the Chicago artist who came up with the idea of taking Obama’s distinctive circular initial and turning it into a sun on the horizon, because it’s been instantly recognizable ever since it saw the light of day in 2007. Rarely has an individual been identified with just a simple logo. (Unless maybe you’re Prince, but even he had problems attempting it.) As our Social Media Director, Shannon Milholland, pointed out, the logo also pushes the website, never a bad idea.

(And I should apologize for using the hackneyed word “kudos”. I meant, of course, to say “props”.)

Although Ron Paul also has a more traditional campaign logo, this is the one that his following has adopted because it doesn’t look political, which is what his fans seem to prefer. Its sprayed-on graffiti look may ride this side of anarchy, but the lettering is cleanly and carefully stenciled, and the message behind the revolution is LOVE. For my money, this rivals Obama’s logo for creativity and originality.

On the down side, the same nonpolitical look that makes this design popular with Paul’s fans tends to disappoint those who still expect to see good old America in their bumper sticker. For them there is the other Paul logo, which is more traditional and includes an eagle.

                                                          

I was surprised how many dislike Romney’s “R” flag.  Granted, it doesn’t look like any flag I’ve ever seen, especially having a fold in the middle. But it didn’t bother me because it at least adds some originality to what would otherwise be a very corporate, traditional design. Giving it the tagline “Believe in America” was a smart addition. I do like the font and the way the “E” connects with the “Y”, suggesting stability.

Santorum’s name may be well known enough to get away with it, but from a distance this bumper sticker says “RICK SANT RUM” with something red in between. Up close you do get it, and the eagle is majestic and beautiful. The circle (of stars?) around it might have been more effective had they been bolder and not difficult to see from afar. They at least tried to do something creative with the “O”, so kudos, props and finger snaps for effort.

As you may have heard, Obama’s logo was the winner in our logo poll, garnering as much design preference as all the other candidates combined, with Gingrich and Santorum tied for second. Thank you all for being fair and objective, and for using your artistic eye in this little exercise, versus other criteria.

The whole point, again, was to demonstrate how influenced we are by design alone. Whether it’s our book cover, website or business card, it pays to persuade with a good look. If you’ll make the extra effort to project an effective image, you may find more readers making you their write-in candidate.

The Politics of Logos

by Gary Fearon, Creative Director

We see them so continuously that they are burned into our brains. Much like the cowboys who claimed cattle via their initial on the end of a hot poker, companies spend millions reinforcing an identifiable brand logo in an attempt to claim customers.

The Burger King name inside a bun, the “e” in Dell resembling a circuit board being plugged in, the Fox logo with Hollywood searchlights, and the colorful NBC peacock all evoke a vivid representation of what the company stands for. While Colonel Sanders has gone on to that great deep fryer in the sky, his grandfatherly image remains more inviting than, well, that of a chicken. And the FedEx logo, with its subliminal arrow, does a fine job of telling you they’ll get your stuff from here to there.

You don’t even need the name to identify the logos above. (And isn’t it interesting that they’re all somewhat circular?)  Indeed, they’ve gone around and around in our consciousness so repeatedly that we see the CBS eye and instantly know what network they want us to watch with ours. From the cooperatively-connected colors of national flags to Alexander Graham’s Bell, these all convey a bit of what the company stands for.

But what if you don’t have a target, shell or bat in your name to get creative with?  That’s when you often see an extra graphic added to the equation:

Nike’s speed-suggesting “swoosh” is so famous it can stand alone without the company name (notice that both the name and the swoosh are trademarked). On the other hand, Walmart, Sears and Macy’s feature less meaningful symbols which cannot stand alone. Meanwhile, Pepsi’s design (another circle BTW) is unique enough to never be confused with another brand, plus it incorporates the red, white and blue befitting an all-American drink.

Which brings me to this (potentially unsettling) question: What do we authors have in common with politicians?  

Well, both we and they face an interesting challenge. Our successful marketing recognition depends on getting our name out there, just like Starbuck’s or Hershey. But an individual seeking to be in the public eye is not a product, or a company, but rather a person. 

Authors don’t do special logos with our name, but we still do branding. It comes in the form of our book covers. Our websites. Are they creative and appealing?  Distinctive?  Do they reflect what we write?  Before the audience reads the first chapter of a novel, or hears the first campaign speech, they’ve already formed an opinion of what we’re about, based on our visual introduction.  

Later this month I’ll show you some great graphicals that authors have used to successfully brand themselves. In the meantime, since we’re in the thick of political season, I though we might have fun today with a poll of our own.

Below are the bumper stickers of the five politicians campaigning for President this fall (in alphabetical order for impartiality). 

In your opinion, which of these logos works best? Try to dismiss your thoughts of the candidates themselves, and evaluate whose branding is the most effective, based purely on the visuals. It’s Tuesday, so cast your vote! I’ll give you the results next week, my fellow Americans.

(Look in the right hand sidebar to see our official poll and vote there. Also comment below and tell us specifically what do you like or dislike about a particular politician's logo.)