It seems we’ve come a long way since the embarassing typographical blunders of the Bush (43) administration. Senator Obama’s signs are tastefully rendered in classic Perpetua and modern Gotham (the GQ Magazine font). Senator McCain’s signs are cleanly set in Optima, a titling font popular in the 1970s and famous for its use on the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial. Both campaigns should be commended for their attention to design. But the other day I got to thinking: why such a bland color palette? I understand the significance of red, white, and blue, but must they (in their most basic shades) be the only suitably patriotic choices for campaign art?
On the Web I found a nice compilation of presidential campaign logos from 1960 to present. As you can see, the only candidate to ever depart from the flag triad and win is Jimmy Carter. But I suppose it is understandable that nobody wants to follow his lead.
shazam ()
I’m a bit surprised that you come down so evenly on the design choices of the two campaigns: I’ve often thought to myself that, were the election a graphic design contest, this would not be a close race. Obama would win, hands down. We’re talking landslide. His people deserve an enormous amount of praise for the coherence and style of their graphic identity (for an identity it certainly is), which has consistently bowled me over throughout the race. They clearly understand the importance of good design: their attention to these matters shows, and as someone who appreciates good, thoughtful design, I have been pleased again and again.
McCain’s campaign, on the other hand, while as you rightly point out has been consistent in its look and clean in its style, suffers from an initial handicap: his yellow-starburst logotype hearkens (a bit too much for this viewer) to the McCain Foods logotype. Every time I see a McCain (or, now, McCain-Palin) sign, I think of french fries. This resonance may be limited to us design geeks who for some reason remember company logotypes regardless of whether or not we buy their products, or who have worked in design enough to have the importance of branding and graphic identity drilled into their advertising worldview, but I suspect that it might be wider. This is exactly the sort of nitpicky detail that a graphic designer for any major company (or political campaign) is being paid to think about, and to me it just suggests that McCain’s design team wasn’t doing its job from the get-go. If we haven’t by now all learned that (for better or for worse) this political campaigning stuff is as much PR as it is policy, we haven’t been paying any attention.
It is fair, though, to say (as you do) that they have done a good job with what they started out with, maintaining continuity of design with the blue-and-yellow star theme (and, as I note upon visiting the McCain campaign website for the first time in a long while while writing this post, even using some very similar designs to the Obama web site, in terms of font choice etc.), and perhaps I should give them more credit than I have. (Their graphic identity has, at the very least, been more consistent than their campaign message!) But in the end I have to say: I just don’t like their logotype or their theme. It’s boring, uninteresting, unoriginal… and Optima makes me think of Lechmere, not the Vietnam Memorial. In the end, it just can’t hold a candle to the Obama campaign’s truly stellar graphic design work. (I mean, look at the web site. It’s really, really good. On pretty much every design count.)
The Cooper-Hewitt won’t be knockin’ on the McCain camp’s door. Is all I’m sayin'.
Scott ()
MRhé ()
Obama certainly has won in terms of branding/marketing - at least according to AdAge. And their campaign has been brilliant on all counts, speaking strictly as a marketeer.
How did I know that Amrys would be all up ons the comments on this entry?
shazam ()