Personally, I’m ecstatic that Hillary Clinton finally officially announced she's running for President again. But I’m also fascinated by the debate around the logo for her campaign.
Logos have a habit of causing a furore. The internet goes wild for new logos, bad logos, logos that look like a pair of balls, in the case of AirBnB's redesign last year.
I'm a big fan. I'm also a big Obama fan, and it was kind of a shame that eight years ago – when it was initially Hillary's time to step out from Bill's shadow and run on her own merits – she had such competition from her own party. But now, I think 2016 might just be the year that America pulls itself together and votes a woman in. Although it might be a little awkward for her sitting at the desk in the Oval Office – the scene of Bill's indiscretions.
Australia’s had a woman in charge. The UK had one – although it was 20 years ago and she was as divisive as they come. But the US has yet to break that particular barrier/glass ceiling.
There is unlikely to be a woman in the US that has the experience, knowledge, long term understanding of how governments work, how the US interacts with other world nations, and how to run the economy in the best interests of the nation. It comes from both her time as First Lady and her time as Secretary of State and a multitude of other senior roles. Yes she is mature in years – 67 which means if she wins, and serves two terms – she'll be 77 by the time she leaves office, but she's fantastically qualified and so her election campaign, and eventual success or otherwise, should of course be based on that.
But, it will of course also be based on branding; how 'Brand Hillary' comes across and appeals to Americans.
It's a scary truth that most of the electorate doesn't fully understand, or even pay attention to the detail of policies, what their impact will be and how they will be implemented – whichever party we're talking about in whichever nation. Largely the complex structures of government, sets of legislations, ethics and values, are reduced to dot points, and slogans and brief wrap ups that fit on the back of bar mats.
So it follows that in politics, branding can be as important as the politics itself. Now, policies aside, as with every election campaign – not just in the US – every aspect is under scrutiny, every single detail is analysed to within an inch of its life. And so, Hillary's logo didn't escape it – and it didn't fare too well.
Vox is running a piece titled “Designers explain why nobody likes Hillary Clinton's campaign logo”
It's too blocky; too corporate; too hard edged, are some of the criticisms. All of which are at odds with the campaign video that Hillary launched which was decidedly personable, without being sickeningly warm and fuzzy.
Quartz is calling it “uninspiring”.
Yesterday, Julie Macken, former Greens communications co-ordinator, told AdNews that Clinton's understated launch campaign, was likely to be built around focussing on policies not on personality, so the low key logo fits right into that staretgy.
But while it's highly unlikely to win any prizes design, it does what it should. It's clear, fully functioning, it's easy to recognise. It says that Hillary is not here to muck around. That she wants to be President and will be focusing on policies that help her do that – not design. And I hope that what Hillary wants, she gets. The logo might not be inspiring but brand Hillary certainly is.