2020 Election Logos/Branding Thread

[MJWalker45]

34 minutes ago, the admiral said:

With design like this, this is one Cory who won't be in the House.

This Cory uses a better looking design too.

[The_Admiral]

Is he using Our Colores?

[Cujo]

On 1/28/2019 at 5:53 PM, Zeus89725 said:

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't this politicking? Didn't we say no politicking here anymore?

 

There are no rules.

 

Just sit back and watch the banhanner drop.

 

[keynote]

On 1/28/2019 at 1:56 PM, the admiral said:

Kamala Harris’s Logo Is a Disaster. Here’s Why.

 

 

 

I actually dig Harris' logo.  I also think it looks great in motion -- which makes sense, seeing as campaigns are increasingly focusing on digital marketing.  A static lockup will remain important, but it's more important than ever to have a logo built for dynamism.  I can imagine Harris' logo animated as a GIF; I'm not sure about the others. 

[keynote]

On 2/1/2019 at 10:07 AM, DeFrank said:

Good thing they have a full-name version that I'm sure we'll see a lot:

 

 

I like the "We Rise" button -- but I don't see the connection with the rest of the campaign's visual identity.  Its usefulness will depend entirely on whether Booker can do enough to "own" that phrase the way Obama owned "Yes We Can" during his presidential run.  

[Quillz]

On 2/1/2019 at 7:16 AM, CS85 said:

 

 

Am I the only one who loathes the abuse of the word "Rise" in branding these days?   It feels remarkably pretentious. 

"Rise" in political branding is like calling a sequel "Returns/Revolution/Resurrection." It's so generic that when I see that word I just ignore it entirely.

[The_Admiral]

9 hours ago, keynote said:

A static lockup will remain important

 

you're tellin' me

[BBTV]

On 2/1/2019 at 8:54 AM, Dexter Morgan said:

Don’t tell Booker, he’s rocking the LA Clippers current look.

 

On 2/1/2019 at 8:56 AM, Dexter Morgan said:

 

So... anything with red, black, and blue is the "Clippers look", despite not looking even remotely similar?  That's like saying that Pete Buttigieg is rocking the Patriots look.

[Dexter Morgan]

Except red white blue is far more common than red white blue and black 

[The_Admiral]

Actually, his addition of stark white-on-black text had me thinking of the Nets, which is funny because he's Mr. Newark (pron: NORK) and that's what the Nets started using when they skipped town for Brooklyn, like so many children of privilege with new jobs in graphic design and stuff.

[BrandMooreArt]

"Beyond the unconventional type treatment, the Harris campaign also adopted an uncommon color scheme... The colors are basically the red, white, and blue of the American flag—but warmer and more vibrant. They fit the human aspect of the slogan: it’s “For the People,” after all. When displayed on a white background, the violet part at top left and the red at bottom right make the logo resemble the US flag’s fabled stars and stripes, thanks to the persistent rhythm of the letters’ strokes." 

 

https://www.typenetwork.com/news/article/kamala-harris-runs-with-type-network-type

 

 

[The_Admiral]

59 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

The colors are basically the red, white, and blue of the American flag—but warmer and more vibrant.

 

 

I think it was the '88 Democratic convention where they tried to do a softer, warmer version of red, white, and blue, and did the whole set in salmon, eggshell, and turquoise. It looked really bad and even worse now. I think you either have to get the colors right or don't. Just let it be red, yellow, and purple for red, yellow, and purple's sake.

[BrandMooreArt]

25 minutes ago, the admiral said:

I think it was the '88 Democratic convention where they tried to do a softer, warmer version of red, white, and blue, and did the whole set in salmon, eggshell, and turquoise. It looked really bad and even worse now. I think you either have to get the colors right or don't. Just let it be red, yellow, and purple for red, yellow, and purple's sake.

 

you may not like it but its not a reach at all, what they've laid out in text is absolutely written into the design; and thats how you make good design decisions. the aesthetics have to be driven by purpose, by reason. otherwise, it is not much more than decoration and the only justification it can have is "i like it" or that it is different for the sake of it. that is not design. 

 

a shift in color is not even uncommon— there is no standard blue or red for these campaigns. 

[pianoknight]

(MOD EDIT)

 

Back on design, however - it makes for a LOT of logos and I can at least enjoy that. 

[pianoknight]

9 hours ago, BrandMooreArt said:

"Beyond the unconventional type treatment, the Harris campaign also adopted an uncommon color scheme... The colors are basically the red, white, and blue of the American flag—but warmer and more vibrant. They fit the human aspect of the slogan: it’s “For the People,” after all. When displayed on a white background, the violet part at top left and the red at bottom right make the logo resemble the US flag’s fabled stars and stripes, thanks to the persistent rhythm of the letters’ strokes." 

 

https://www.typenetwork.com/news/article/kamala-harris-runs-with-type-network-type

 

 

That's some Nike level, "jaws of Husky Stadium" marketing-speak. 

[BrandMooreArt]

8 hours ago, pianoknight said:

That's some Nike level, "jaws of Husky Stadium" marketing-speak. 

 

its really not. those colors are absolutely shifts of r/w/b. thats why they were chosen. (and to that Washington example— Nike cut those inserts to actually reflect those parts of the stadium, they match perfectly on the angle.) 

 

there's plenty of examples of logs/identity where the reasoning for the visuals is backwards, where nonsense copywriting or justification comes afterwards. (i'd use Nike's "hunting from the shadows" as an example) this is not one of those times. this is how its done correctly, when the visuals are driven by reason and purpose. it could be a lousy idea, but the idea is there.

 

 

[Atomic]

Again - let's keep the discussion to the graphic design elements and not on the political aspects. Thank you. 

[Ray Lankford]

On 1/31/2019 at 4:50 PM, BrandMooreArt said:

The Women Running for President Are Breaking the Rules of Branding

 

https://medium.com/@Hyperakt/when-it-comes-to-branding-2020-campaigns-women-have-already-delivered-on-change-2a53c95c4e34

 

 

My first thought after looking at those Kamala Harris ads:

Kamala 2020: Females are strong as hell!

[kroywen]

1 hour ago, Ray Lankford said:

My first thought after looking at those Kamala Harris ads:

Kamala 2020: Females are strong as hell!

 

There's definitely a resemblance to Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt. Would not be surprised if Kamala's designers took cues from that, though it's a very contemporary and optimistic look right now, so could be coincidental.

[pianoknight]

12 hours ago, BrandMooreArt said:

 

its really not. those colors are absolutely shifts of r/w/b. thats why they were chosen. (and to that Washington example— Nike cut those inserts to actually reflect those parts of the stadium, they match perfectly on the angle.) 

 

there's plenty of examples of logs/identity where the reasoning for the visuals is backwards, where nonsense copywriting or justification comes afterwards. (i'd use Nike's "hunting from the shadows" as an example) this is not one of those times. this is how its done correctly, when the visuals are driven by reason and purpose. it could be a lousy idea, but the idea is there.

 

 

 

I agree with your last statement. Maybe they made a purposeful decision that informed design, but it feels totally overthought and "look, we're clever."