graphic arts critique of Bush & Kerry campaign logo designs . . .

guess next time we should find better graphic designers . . .

http://www.bamagazine.com/BushKerry/



Remember, we’re not talking politics or personalities or platforms; this is a design discussion, and what we want to know is which design does the best job of conveying the attributes of its candidate.
But it’s no contest, really. Design at its best is definite and intentional; every element, shape, color and space is there for a reason and works to articulate a coherent message.

The Bush Cheney logo does this. It is compact, concise, forward-moving and energetic. From the presidential navy blue field to the muscular, right-leaning type to the bold, stylized flag, every element works to convey power, clarity and decisiveness. The visual message is of a man who knows what he stands for and where he’s going -- and agree with him or not, the image leaves the viewer no wiggle room, no possibility of another interpretation.

Kerry Edwards is the opposite. Its thin, serif typeface is overwhelmed on a poster -- detailed, fussy, dominated by the blue behind it. Had it been carefully chosen and beautifully set, the type could have conveyed intelligence, literacy and heritage -- all Kerry attributes -- but it doesn’t; it’s just an ordinary font set the way one would type it: two words the same size, mostly lowercase, flush left -- a thoughtless presentation that makes Edwards dominant and leaves an empty rectangle in the upper right corner, which was then filled with a flag. There was no plan; the words defined the shapes, which then determined what could fill them. Result: an ambiguous placard lacking presence, vision, motion, point and purpose.

- more . . .

http://www.bamagazine.com/BushKerry/

web design course and am looking at these with "new eyes." you're so right. "theirs" is much more sleek, right to the point. "ours" is static. wonder who did it.

If it didn't make a difference, corporate America wouldn't spend billions of dollars every year on these people to get their image just so.

Example: UPS Logo



You may think it makes little difference, but it probably does with many consumers on a subconscious level.

Every candidate should be keenly aware of this. Those campaign signs imprint themselves in your head just like a corporate logo and go a long way in defining the candidates when you are talking about a populace that is not very well informed.

Is that the bush flag has only the top half (top half of america) while kerry includes the whole flag.

Why did they only show the top half of the flag?

Because they only care about the top portion of the populace.

The Kerry one looks like they just used clip art.

Cheap as a frayed old suit.

To me, it very loudly announced "angry bully."
I found it to be revolting and offensive, just like the candidates.
In that sense, I agree it was a successful graphic treatment, which I'm sure appealead to Shrub-lovers for the very same reasons I hated it.


Maybe it was just a cooincidence, but most of the people I saw driving around with this logo on their vehicles looked like they would have welcomed the chance to enter a bunny-kicking contest.

I felt the Bushco campaign materials were designed to appeal especially to traditional white males. Aggressive, industrial font; extremely traditional and conservative navy-suit blue, feminine red (from the ancient symbolism of the red rose, red lips, red menstrual blood) stripes of the flag amputated and controlled through stylization.

absolutely CRAZY during the campaign. You couldn't put our logo next to theirs, because ours looked ridiculous. Theirs was far, far more aesthetically pleasing, right down to the colors, and the spacing of the font at the bottom that said "g e o r g e w b u s h . c o m." It was brilliant. It was more easily recognizable as a campaign sticker than ours sometimes was. You could fit it on a smaller size sticker. Us? Well, we used Georgia (or something incredibly close to it - I know I personally used Georgia) and slapped a clipart flag onto it. NO. TERRIBLE DECISION.

To reiterate: No. Bad. Bad idea.

God. It honestly makes me want to start designing logos for 2008 so they don't screw it up next time.

Er, yes, I'm rather touchy about graphics matters.

anything right it appears. The design didn't make anyone voted or not vote for Kerry. THIS WAS ANOTHER STOLEN ELECTION! And we won't win elections, NO matter what, if we don't stop the Republicans from stealing elections!

won or lost us voters? I agree with you that it was stolen. But, like I said, as a graphics designer, it drove me insane to see that we had such a mediocre logo.

From a distance, the two logos are similar enough that it's hard to tell them apart - say if you were counting bumper stickers while driving. (I liked the Kerry/Edwards "rainbow background" bumper stickers better, just for the refreshing colors.) From up close, I have to agree with the analysis. I don't think our "wimpy logo" caused us to "lose," but every little bit helps, so let this be a lesson to us next time to put a little more forethought into the design. People go to school for years to learn just these tricks and techniques, how color, text, and design have subtle influence on the viewer. Let's utilize some of those people next time.

That being said, my bumper stickers and sign aren't going anywhere any time soon.....

Ours was too "busy." Especially the yard signs... they had "A Stronger America" and "johnkerry.com" and WAY too much crap.

big and loud presentations

Not much of an impact...

"John Kerry for President" (before he selected Edwards as his mate) was a better design. It was very distinctive. Much better than the one they went with after Edwards was selected.




...and an article discussing the design: http://www.abstractdynamics.org/archives/2004/04/17/john_kerry_president_behind_the_logo.html

to the stupid morans who voted for them. They're sooooooo stupid there's no way in hell they would be able to analyze the sticker.

Did someone have this same sticker analysis back in 2000 when Gore won?

What about that other * shit?

Viva la * and the stupid w one?

Maybe the stupid w one was meant to appeal to the majority of their voters who have < 10 IQs.

Why are so many of the talented liberals half-starving and marginalized, while consultants and hacks of various kinds are rolling in DNC mega-bucks? Why do the Republicans put people to work and use all their talent that is available? Why are so many who work for right wing causes so well taken care of while so many talented people on the left have no backers and no support and no recognition?

The logo design is just one of many, many examples from the campaign where hacks with connections were given the work while oodles of talent sat on the sidelines. In contrast, the Republicans snap up anyone with any talent, put them to work and take care of them.

So many talented people have told me over the years that when they volunteered their talents to the party, they were put on a phone bank or sent out canvassing.

probably intentional.
design wise, I do agree that the B/C is more 'slick'. but who the hell really cares about graphic design in this kind of situation.

and its approval?

ZELL MILLER! :P

Message to DNC: It isn't that expensive to make good graphics guys!

You'll notice that the B/C '04 logo even links the American Flag directly to Bush's name, blatantly bonding the two as if they're one in the same and if you accept one, the other must follow.

It's all about the marketing.