Okay. The 2016 Presidential election is still at the "people announcing that they are running stage", so there really isn't that much to get excited about, but I am astonished at how "meta" the logo design criticism can be. I know I just snarked on Clinton's "hospital parking" logo, and I've mentioned Rand Paul's fiery torch. (I wonder if any candidate has considered working a pitchfork into their logo--Senator Santorum, I bet it would play well in Iowa! One campaign idea, free of charge!)
But what does Rubio's logo
say? That
there is an "I" in Marco Rubio, and the contiguous 48 states are its dot? And are we that keen to
remind folks of PNAC? Also, after fifteen years in, is the century all that new? (Although he is the youngest candidate in the running--is
Rubio all that new, either?)
Would saying
"Don't quit your day job," just be mean of me? (I kid. But just a little.)
1 comment:
I'll just paste in here what I said to Kevin Drum a few hours ago:
I've been working at software companies in Silicon Valley since the '80s. As such, I've been involved in a ton of naming, renaming, branding, rebranding, colors, fonts, logos, taglines, elevator speeches, messaging, targeting and every other kind of MarCom positioning imaginable. And I've come to the conclusion that it really doesn't matter. After a couple weeks, it all becomes invisible, and to people seeing it for the first time it just IS. The greatest trick the devil ever played on companies was convincing them that visual marketing matters...
Post a Comment