Sol Sender, from VSA Partners, takes us on a tour of the thinking, the process, and the runners up in designing the logo for what is easily the biggest brand of 2008. If you’re not familiar with identity work, it’s not easy, but it’s fun. Although I can’t imagine working on something with this much on the line. Seeing all the different iterations of the campaign logo is not only fascinating, it’s a great windo into the creative process of people at the top of my industry.
Personally, I found it rather lame… Not sure what I would have done for a logo for a political candidate or even if there should be a “LOGO” for a political candidate? Mapping a general look to a candidates campaign is one thing I do understand. I also understand it’s easy for me to say “That sucks” when I don’t know the whole story or if I could have done better.
Do we need to “Sell” our politicos like a candy bar, 6 pack or auto? What does that say about us, them? Packaging a car, soap, perfume and such is one thing but how would Jefferson, Washington even Eisenhower have seen this? The “I Like Ike” slogan is one thing but packaging him as a commodity, I don’t know it just seems slimy but that could be my age or maybe just my political naiveté. I mean do they use it on letterheads? Hi this is a letter from your President and here is my logo to prove it? Do we need a logo so we can distinguish him for the other models because we might get confused as to what we are buying?
I also wonder why they, Obama’s team, had another company/design team take over what supposedly they were happy with? Money, time frame or personalities? When I worked at a large design firm here in SoCal we did a french soda pop launch they said they were very happy with but within a few weeks they told us a french company was taking over? Hum?
Seeing the fellow in the vid brings back memories, some good some not so. That whole atmosphere was something I will always have fond memories of and even sometimes miss. I still travel over to Art Center, here in Pasadena, to see the student gallery and marvel and miss the energy of it all and talk to some of my past instructors. They say it’s all changed since I was there and…Oops… there I go again, rambling.
Wow. I completely disagree with you, RB, and on pretty much every point. As someone from the business, I’m double surprised that you wouldn’t see the value in it. To each their own, though.
I understand the why it’s done, and understand this is the way it is. I question it more on a philosophical level as my belief is put the candidates on a soap box and let them be elected on their merits not how well their commercials sell them or how spiffy their logo is, money spent. It all reminds me of the Redford movie the Candidate, I think it is called. Kennedy over Nixon is a perfect example. Kennedy wasn’t as smart as Nixon, let me say I didn’t like Nixon and didn’t vote for the germ, but Kennedy was packaged so well and was so good looking he couldn’t loose.
Personally I believe there should be limits on spending, limits on commercials and so on. Spending 150+ million to become president is insane. I feel that TV Stations should give a specific amount time freely to each legitimate candidate and that debates should be broadcast on all stations freely and there should be more than three debates. I feel there should be a nationwide primary to select maybe 5 candidates, not 4 dems and 4 repubs, from different beliefs and backgrounds and have them all have equal time and space in news papers, TV, internet. Campaigning should last no more than 1 year and then have the election. I also feel that each candidate should pick his running mate at the beginning of that year and make a “statement of policy” on all subjects concerning our country like healthcare, welfare, defense and so on so they can’t change it up as the whim or scandal moves them and that it should be published. Of course this all would need to be worked out but by who… Congress? Ha, that’s a joke.
I heard this argument throughout the campaign about Obama — that he’s all style and no substance — and frankly I think it’s bunk. He didn’t win because he was well packaged. It didn’t hurt, but there’s no way an otherwise unknown junior Illinois Senator, and a black man to boot, wins the presidency on flash and spectacle. He won because of his inclusive message of meaningful change and because he and his campaign promised to and then delivered on a different kind of campaign. He rallied people to his cause organically because of his ideas and his ideals of a populist government and a United States of America. His campaign grew into a movement and a lot of that had to do with brand, but contrary to your criticism, it didn’t happen because he was well funded. He was well funded because people believe in what he wants to do as President. What remains at this point is to see if he can live up to that — if he can deliver on that brand promise.
That’s why I voted for him.