Business Insider India has updated its Privacy and Cookie policy. We use cookies to ensure that we give you the better experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we\'ll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on the Business Insider India website. However, you can change your cookie setting at any time by clicking on our Cookie Policy at any time. You can also see our Privacy Policy.
We asked a group of graphic design experts to rate the 2020 presidential candidate logos and they were not impressed
We asked a group of graphic design experts to rate the 2020 presidential candidate logos and they were not impressed
Skye GouldApr 1, 2019, 23:08 IST
Advertisement
With each 2020 presidential candidate announcement comes a logo and accompanying branding for their campaign, including fundraising websites, advertising, and social media posts.
We asked five graphic design and branding experts to rate the logos of 2020 presidential candidates on a scale of 1-10, where 1 is the worst, 5.5 is just okay, and 10 is excellent.
Our panel of judges were not generally impressed by the logos thus far.
With the 2020 election already in full swing, presidential candidates have unveiled their (sometimes) shiny new logos.
Branding has always played a huge role in politics, but especially in the digital age where so often people's first interaction with a candidate is through their website or social media presence. If a candidate's logo, slogans, colors, and messaging don't stand out in an already crowded race, it can greatly impact how far they make it and how much name recognition they gain.
In 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama's iconic "O" became the symbol his campaign ran on. This created a shift in how candidates treated their branding and is reflected in future campaigns. In 2016, Hillary Clinton attempted to replicate this effect with an "H" that incorporated an arrow across the letter.
According to Deroy Peraza, Principal & Creative Director at the Brooklyn-based design studio Hyperakt, the most successful 2020 branding will come from campaigns that "aren't afraid to show the identity of the candidate and break with traditional norms, which in political branding are red, white and blue."
Advertisement
We saw the impact of having a unique color pallete during the 2018 midterm elections, when freshman congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made history as the youngest woman elected to congress. She stood out from her longtime incumbent opponent by highlighting her heritage and youthfulness with a bright yellow and purple color pallete for her logo and posters.
Now other candidates are attempting to replicate her success. Kamala Harris, Marianne Williamson, and Elizabeth Warren are all experimenting with color in their 2020 campaigns. But color is only part of the battle when it comes to branding. There are many other elements including typeface, layout, and slogan choice that can ultimately make or break a logo.
We asked five graphic design and branding experts to rate the 2020 campaign logos on a scale of 1-10, where 1 is the worst, 5.5 is just okay, and 10 is excellent. Our panel of judges includes:
Heller: 2/10 – "This is just poor design. The 'D' is ugly and does not harmonize with the type, which is also uninteresting."
Lupton: 4/10 – "An interstate highway heading to the future? No thanks. I’ll walk."
Formosa: 2/10 – "The 'Focus on the future' slogan, appears at first glance to be a corporate logo. Political logos present an opportunity to communicate positive personal messages. This one, unfortunately, doesn’t."
Navitsky: 2/10 – "Lots of competing elements here. I’m also not sure if this is a presidential candidate or someone who is going to be refinishing driveways."
Millman: 1/10 – No comment given
14. Washington Governor Jay Inslee
Average score: 2.2/10
Heller: 2/10 – "Poor type choice."
Lupton: 3/10 – "Whose moment? The candidate’s? The Democrats’? Who is this candidate? Who are the Democrats?"
Formosa: 3/10 – "More of a corporate logo than a personal logo, with a message 'Our moment' that says little."
Navitsky: 3/10 – "Secretly I want to give this a 10 because it’s so unexpected and weird, but ultimately it doesn’t feel like there’s a human behind it. And that seems fairly problematic."
Millman: 0/10 – No comment given
13. Entrepreneur Andrew Yang
Average score: 2.7/10
Heller: 4.5/10 – "Conventional, but using the flag in a somewhat clever fashion."
Lupton: 3/10 – "The flag cliché is really struggling here."
Formosa: 2/10 – "Not much to say about this red, white, and blue logo other than it looks like it’s coming from someone running for mayor of a small town. It’s not communicating anything beyond that to convince you he’s the guy you want."
Navitsky: 4/10 – "Forward momentum seems like the right message to send for 2020, but this overall feels pretty safe."
Heller: 6/10 – "This has simplicity and grit. The lower case type is fine, but it really does not project presidential, more like Amy for congress."
Lupton: 5/10 – "It looks like she is running for president of her high school class."
Formosa: 3/10 – "A green 'Amy' and the logo’s typeface sends a message of friendliness – but not necessarily confidence in electing her as president of the United States. Friendly and approachable are good qualities, but they aren't everything. And for America' as a slogan? Not very catchy – I would hope all the candidates are."
Navitsky: 4/10 – "The ornate serif feels overly decorative and lacks credibility. This one seems to be trying a bit too hard."
Millman: 1/10 – "The color palette will wreak havoc on color-blind people."
Heller: 5/10 – "PETE does nothing. The star reminds me of so many others. He does not have a strong brand, whoever he is."
Lupton: 8/10 – "The regular guy vibe works, but underscoring his last name could pull the whole mark together."
Formosa: 4/10 – "First names seem to work better when the names are less common. It’s getting just fair grades from me on differentiation, impact, and trust."
Navitsky: 3/10 – "Mayor Pete is an impressive candidate, but his logo feels like a missed opportunity. It’s incredibly expected and underwhelming — not at all reflective of him as an individual."
Millman: 1/10 – No comment given
10. Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard
Average score: 4.4/10
Heller: 3/10 –"Mixed response. It is stark. Red is strong. But it says nothing. It could be a artisanal beer."
Lupton: 9/10 – "Wonderful letter-forms — bold and warm. The typeface makes the name visually memorable."
Formosa: 3/10 – "Especially at this stage in the election ... with [so many] Democratic candidates in contention, there is not enough being expressed in this logo to attract interest or graphically reflect anything about her views or personality. And I can’t get over the fact that it looks like a logo for a power tool company."
Navitsky: 4/10 – "The cuts in the 'i' and 't' don’t feel like they are adding any value to the overall logo, and I find them more distracting than anything."
Millman: 3/10 – No comment given
9. Motivational speaker and author Marianne Williamson
Average score: 4.5/10
Heller: 6.5/10 – "I have no idea who she is. Its pretty yet does not imply 'power' it plays off the pussy-hat movement. Too rarified. But soothing to the eyes."
Lupton: 6/10 – "Too girly."
Formosa: 1/10 – "This logo, with text saying 'Marianne 2020' isn’t conveying a lot of confidence. Pink can be a powerful color. It’s not very powerful here."
Navitsky: 6/10 – "I quite like that this identity feels so different from everything else in its approachability."
Millman: 3/10 – "Not a presidential logo, but points for pink."
Heller: 7.5/10 – "This is fine, but the mountains suggest his origins not the nation as a whole. It works better as a logo for candidate for governor."
Lupton: 6/10 – "The mountain metaphor overwhelms the candidate’s name."
Formosa: 4/10 – "The mountain symbols on a light blue background are fine if he wants to be president of Colorado, which in a sense he already is. But it doesn’t have the universal impact that it should, receiving low scores on impact and trust."
Navitsky: 5/10 – "This identity plays into a lot of tropes, but in a way that does feel fairly modern. Unfortunately, also a bit forgettable — the mountains are more memorable than the name."
Millman: 1/10 – No comment given
7. Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro
Average score: 5/10
Heller: 6/10 – "The accent mark is a nice touch. It suggest ethnicity. Nonetheless, I’m not crazy about the Castro element being so diminutive."
Lupton: 7/10 – "Matching up the accent on the Á with the blue 2020 creates a fresh rhythm."
Formosa: 4/10 – "Not hitting the mark on differentiation, impact or trust. And the size difference between his large first name and tiny last name is puzzling."
Navitsky: 7/10 – "I appreciate that Julián very intentionally played up his heritage. It feels authentically him, and effectively distinguishes him from the other candidates."
Heller: 6/10 – "This is PETE with more 'national' color. It is also an echo of “Hillary” from last campaign."
Lupton: 8/10 – "Strong. Direct. No metaphors."
Formosa: 6/10 – "It’s military looking, could just as easily say 'Join the US Army.' As a personal identity it doesn’t reflect what I know of Kirsten Gillibrand."
Navitsky: 4/10 – "Simple. Direct. And that’s about it."
Millman: 2.5/10 – No comment given
5. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders
Average score: 6/10
Heller: 4.5/10 – "Old school, reminiscent of last campaign and not necessarily his own campaign."
Lupton: 8/10 – "Bernie is a brand. He can get away with using just his first name. The wavy gravy stripes and stars are superfluous."
Formosa: 7/10 – "Appropriate for Bernie, traditional red, white and blue with a 1970’s vibe. Difficult to rate this one, because it seems so appropriate."
Navitsky: 8/10 – "Although arguably traditional in its use of an approachable serif and the stars and stripes motif, there is something pretty iconic and memorable about the way all of these things come together. Though, I do wish his hair was incorporated in some way."
Millman: 2.5/10 – "Derivative of Obama’s in all the worst, laziest ways."
Heller: 3/10 – "Wish it weren’t so wishy-washy. Fails to make any statement of either change or status quo. Bland."
Lupton: 8/10 – "Strong lettering with an American wood-type feel."
Formosa: 8/10 – "Simply 'WARREN' in all caps and underlined, on a mint green background, creates an instantly noticeable departure from the typical red, white and blue. Risky perhaps for traditionalists, but that may exactly be the point intended. True to her brand, it infers independent thinking."
Navitsky: 7/10 – "What’s most interesting to me is Warren’s use of mint. It feels like a step forward, but also feels trusting and established. It does a good job communicating her proven effectiveness as a leader."
Heller: 9.5/10 – "To the point, vibrant, bold. I am mixed about the first name trope. I think BOOKER 2020 would work just as well if not better. Maybe the campaign should use both."
Lupton: 7/10 – "Too much emphasis here on 2020. First-name-only logo feels smug."
Formosa: 5/10 – "The logo is strong graphically, but rather generic."
Navitsky: 6/10 – "I wish he would have moved away from the traditional red and blue, but I think the bold and graphic use of color and typography is successful. It feels like it’s reflective of someone who will take action."
Heller: 8.5/10 – "Stark, no nonsense but lacks charm."
Lupton: 9/10 – "Those crisp angular capitals are tall and handsome."
Formosa: 5/10 – "Strong graphic, puts him on a first name basis, but the black background is ominous. 'For America' is a lost opportunity for saying something meaningful."
Navitsky: 7/10 – "There’s something very refreshing to me about Beto’s identity and its use of black. It’s confident, direct, a little bit punk, and gives a window into his approach to candidacy."
Millman: 3/10 – "A missed opportunity for something more progressive."
Heller: 8.5/10 – "I like the typography and color very much. This is the most refreshing of the group, but I don’t think it is a logo. It is a headline. She needs a complimentary logo."
Lupton: 8/10 – "Great slogan. It’s brave to treat the slogan and the candidate’s name with the same scale and intensity. Colors are too Disney."
Formosa: 5/10 – "Kudos for breaking away from the standard red, white and blue motif, but also risky based on the purple/red /yellow colors chosen."
Navitsky: 8.5/10 – "What I find most successful about Kamala’s identity is that she’s giving her mission and initiative the same importance as her name. It feels like a movement. I also think the modern approach to the traditional red and blue and the use of yellow (positivity!) is something else that sets it apart from the rest."