Should The Hillary Clinton Campaign Change Its Logo?

Should The Hillary Clinton Campaign Change Its Logo?


I just got done watching David Axelrod, whose political instincts I respect immensely, tell Meet the Press that he’s not a fan of the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign’s logo:

But logos should have a mention to them, our sunrise logo for Obama had a message to it. I’m not sure what the message of that logo is…[Chuck Todd: you’re not a big fan?] Not terribly.

I also read this article, which asks, “What’s that arrow doing? Why is part of it red? Is it even saying anything?” It also quotes Scott Thomas, the design director for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, commenting, “I think the Hillary logo is really saying nothing…It’s just a red arrow moving to the right.”

I tend to agree. And no, I’m not saying the logo is the biggest deal in the world. Nor am I bashing Hillary Clinton or her campaign, both of which I will likely end up supporting enthusiastically. I simply think the logo isn’t serving her well, and should be changed. One possibility: go with something like this (pictured above; gives it more dynamism, movement, while getting rid of the Republican “red”). Or, how about something like this, the classic red/white/blue American flag (can’t lose with that, right?).  Anyway, as I said, it’s not the biggest deal in the world, but I really don’t get why the likely 2016 Democratic presidential nominee would have a log with a bright red arrow pointing right. Thoughts?

P.S. Counterargument to changing the logo: if she changes it, she’ll be criticized for caving to pressure, bowing to media pressure, etc.

What's Your Confidence Level on the Clinton-Trump Race?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • lowkell

  • lowkell

  • pvogel

    I think  people bashed the Obama  logo too… before it  swpept  imaginations

  • sonofkenny

    Above all a logo needs to be immediately identifiable…no doubt this one is.

    The arrow is not a mystery…it symbolizes forward progress…not sure why that is confusing for people (except for people who want to be confused so they have a new reason to criticize her).

    It’s a logo for the digital age…

  • sonofkenny

    Timelines go left to right…number lines left is negative, right is positive…

    Right facing arrows are known as forward arrows, left facing arrows are known as backward arrows. Google the two terms and see what image results you get.

    Our brains are accustomed to right facing as forward and left facing as backward. I realize the direction provides easy fodder for criticism…but I think on a sort of instinctual level it works quite well..

  • PassionateJus

    And quite frankly I don’t think anyone is going to care, especially among the general electorate. If she was facing a tough primary challenge then maybe it would be a bigger deal, but she’s not so she shouldn’t worry about it.

    It will grow on people. And even if it doesn’t, it isn’t going to lose many votes, if any.

    Quite frankly, I personally like it a lot more than Obama’s 2008 logo (which in hindsight was brilliant). That logo seemed too Orwellian to me (especially all the posters with Obama’s portrait and “Hope” and “Change” on them). After 8 years of Bush, I didn’t like seeing his picture everywhere. Too cult-like in my opinion.

  • NotACorporation

    Is dumb. It’s like she’s deliberately being deliberately derivative of President Obama’s “O” logo.

    She could have a stylized HRC or something to start branding her initials or something else, but I just don’t like the “H” concept.  

  • AnonymousIsAWoman

    I know this sounds like the proverbial guy with a hammer, to whom all things look like a nail. But, honestly, I think the subliminal message (probably unintentional) of the crossbar in the H going to the right and being red is that of a candidate looking to claim the center.

    It also could denote a claim on bipartisanship. I know in the past Hillary has spoken about the need to cooperate with the other side to get things done. I think that is a noble sentiment, just like Obama’s original hope to be a post partisan president.

    But I don’t think the other side of the aisle will ever let that happen. And I believe they view compromise as weakness. Since most Democrats — and lots of the general public — recognize that fact about Republicans, I am not sure how effective this logo is on that subliminal level.

    But again, I could be reading too much into it.

  • kindler

    It gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling — or leaves you cold and dry.

    And you’re right — her logo is all hard angles and primary colors.  This to represent a woman whose image has long been that she is supposedly too cold and harsh and aggressive. (Though I’ve heard directly from people who have worked with and met her that she is, in fact a much nicer person than her image — and our stereotypes of successful women — convey.)

    The advertising world pays psychologists gazillions of dollars to figure out which logos, words and images will evoke the most positive responses from people.  Like it or not, these people know what they’re talking about, and it’s something very real.

    Lots of intellectual progressives such as nerdy little me may wish (or even believe) that we live in a world where logic prevails.  Advertisers — on whom the largest companies and most powerful people depend — know better.  These little things do matter.  

    And her logo is a disaster that should most certainly be changed.  Yeah, people would moan and joke about it for a week and then forget the old logo ever existed.