A while back, we took a look at some of the 2008 presidential candidate campaign logos from both sides of the aisle. As the 2008 campaigns heat up, it’s only fitting that we take a look at the Republican and Democratic party convention logos, both having been released in the past month or so. Neither design is particularly inspiring (some might even say awful), and all political animosity aside, it would be difficult to pick one over the other. Naturally, these designs are ‘preaching to the (mostly) converted’ so their marketing importance is slightly less than say, for a new automotive company logo, but as the marks will represent both parties into next year, their effectiveness is still worth taking a looksee.
The Republican Party 2008 Convention logo.
At risk of alienating my conservative friends, this design is four types of bad. Featuring the ubiquitous GOP pacaderm, the usual iconic elephant graphic has been re-imaged with a more illustrative treatment that features a stance that, to put it politely, is somewhat disturbing. According to some, elephants only achieve this stance when they’re in the midst of, ahm, making little elephants, about to go on a rampage, or after being coaxed into the unnatural position by a circus ringmaster. When combined with the inexplicable starry-eyed gaze (generally used to indicate a high level of inebriation), you have logo that’s prime ‘taking the piss’ fodder for GOP critics. Drunken, sex-crazed elephants are usually not the choice of champions for a political campaign, especially when your party’s main voting block checks off ‘family values’ on their ‘most important issues’ list. Finally, while I understand what the designers were trying to achieve with the stripes on the elephant’s back (it’s a flag dammit!) it leaves me with the impression of tire treads – another unfortunate visual metaphor for a political party that’s trying to ferment a ‘tough guy’ and ‘in-charge’ kinda image.
The Democratic Party 2008 Convention logo.
While the Dem’s logo is less comical, and more visually ‘pretty’, it’s arguably almost as bad when viewed as a design that’s main intention is to drum up enthusiasm from the base. You’d think that a party that struggles with ‘namby pamby’ and ‘soft on security’ image problems would attempt to reflect a bold new vision with their logo – a party that’s willing to take the reigns. Full steam ahead, whiners get below decks kinda thing. Alas, no. The Democratic Convention logo is a blasé (though attractive) piece of visual fluff (sorta sums up critics’ view of the Dems) that leaves me viewing the drunken, sex-starved RNC jumbo with a certain amount of fondness. If I wanted to nit-pick, my first question would be – where’s the flippn’ donkey? Isn’t that the usual icon for the Democratic Party? Second, while some might be able to interpret that the mountains in represent Colorado, how come the logo doesn’t mention the location? And while I understand the white lines on this design too (it’s a flag dammit!) to me it looks like parts of the logo are missing. Or two ‘E’s stacked on top. At first blush, I also read the DNCC portion as ‘dunce’ – probably not a good thing. Don’t like the 8 either – looks upside down, and I still can’t figure out why one of the stars is in front of the mountains.
Which logo is better? I’d say the DNC design has a slight visual advantage and is ultimately more ‘critic’ proof than the RNC, who’s rampaging elephant has become more of a parody than a serious’ political logo. Though the RNC logo is certainly better in the comedy department. That’s why me likey…
Related Posts
