Presidential Branding

What are the candidates saying?

Starting in 1896, political campaigning shifted from a means of information for the voter to a means of branding and selling a candidate through advertising. Political campaigning is now less about public servitude and more a business for its own profit. That business is branding. So, let's take a look at the current political campaign logos for those running in the Republican Primary.

Creating a successful logo is about having a clear and concise message and conveying it to the intended audience. The logo should be framed into the proper space and set the right tone for the audience. A good designer accomplishes this with shape and color. The basic shapes of logo design are square, rectangle, and circle. Tone can be a little more complicated, but for the purposes of this discussion, we will boil it down to bright or dark.

Donald Trump— This logo means business. That’s because marketing and branding is a business, and that’s Trump’s area of expertise. The man knows how to brand. The logo is crisp and clean. It projects professionalism and a hopeful message. It’s framed well and sets the right tone. The flaw in this logo is the same as the man himself. Struggling to admit failure and to be held accountable. The brand is poisoned. And instead of recognizing failures and rebranding, they doubled down with the same logo. The message that was so hopeful in 2016 is just a reminder that nothing in America is that great right now.

Nikki Haley- The logo is modern and bland. It says nothing. It tries to be bold but fails. The tone is too dark. Our colors are red, white, and Blue, not navy. What does Haley stand for? Who is she? No one could tell from this logo.

Mike Pence— The logo is a bolder version of Trump's logo but with no message. The logo has an identity crisis. It can’t decide what it wants to be or who it’s speaking to. It clings to another, wanting to let go. The boldness is ironic coming from a candidate who had opportunities as Vice President to be bold–– but failed them all except January 6^th. That day he did the bare minimum of the responsibility granted to him by the constitution that binds our union. This is exactly the effort he got from his design team–– the bare minimum.

Tim Scott— The logo is lazy. It looks like the first thing I ever created in high school. It’s his first name next to a box, creating negative space for his last name. This design makes the logo rigid. Scott is pinned in a box. Is his last name supposed to be white or whatever the background color is? If the answer is white, then the logo is fixed at a multiple-color logo. This will increase the cost of merchandise printing. It’s important to have adaptability in the logo design. This allows the business more variety when selecting promo products and helps keep the cost down when the budget is tight. The business side of a long-shot presidential candidate should consider this when designing the logo. However, lacking in creativity and thoughtfulness, the logo has a bold message. Faith in America is a layered hopeful message. Hopefully, Tim can find a better team to convey his message.

Larry Elder— This logo reminds me of the 1990s Clinton campaign logos. The tone is a brighter royal blue, and the line and a star shape the flag. Who is Elder? Most people will have to look up his first name before even learning about what he stands for. When the brand is well established, like Nike, the logo can be just a checkmark, and the audience knows who’s speaking. A logo for a long-shot presidential candidate should make sure the audience knows the brand before assuming. It should grab the audience's attention with a catchy slogan that evokes the candidate's personality. Just do it. Make America Great Again!

Chris Christie— This logo is as self-aggrandizing as the candidate. It says very little. Like Haley’s logo, it’s modern and boring. The Tone is dark, and it lacks balance. The pop of color emphasizes the wrong word. If the word Truth were red, it would make more sense and balance the logo. It makes the audience wonder what the campaign’s focus is, the truth or making the candidate matter.

Ron DeSantis— The logo looks like it’s for a minor-league baseball team rather than a political campaign. DeSantis is an intellectual playing populist leader, and his logo says this is a game, and I am really smart and will win it. It says I think I know what people want. Like Haley’s logo, the tone is too dark. It tries to be bold but looks more like the scrawny kid with his chest puffed out staring down a bully–– and isn’t sure what to do next.

Asa Hutchison— This logo reminds me of the 2015 Jeb! logo. I’m not sure why they think using an exclamation point is a good idea so close to Jeb’s debacle. The logo has a message, but it lacks hope. Simply saying for America doesn’t do it anymore. Most people don’t really know the country they live in. We are not as united as we once were. And although it says something, it says too little. Like Elder’s, it assumes the audience knows who Asa is. On the positive side, the logo has proper shape, tone, and adaptability.

Doug Burgum— First, this is a design and not a logo. To be a logo, it needs to be somewhat adaptable to different application processes in color, size, and shape. This fails to meet those standards. The complexity of the design will limit the merchandising available. The rigidness of the design will either lead to a change and inconsistencies in branding or it will cause the campaign to incur additional costs for merchandising applications. It’s an attractive design for a T-Shirt giveaway but not a good presidential campaign logo. By the way, who is Doug Burgum?

Vivek Ramaswamy— The logo is sleek and modern. It’s bold and refined. It says this is both a business and a game. It looks like it could be a patch on soccer, labor, or military uniforms. The logo has a balanced tone and adaptability. It says give me power.

Will Hurd–– The logo is well-designed. I like the star in the R to remind the audience of where Will served in Congress. It's adaptable but lacks a strong message. Like others, it assumes the audience knows who the candidate is instead of informing them.

What are your thoughts on the logos? Leave a comment and start a debate.