Markon's Take On Hillary Clinton's New Logo


Shortly after Hillary Clinton announced that she is running for President the design community, and just about everyone else, took to the web to talk about her logo. Some love it. Some hate it. Some find it outright unprofessional. Either way, people are talking about it! 

Below is a conversation between Kristine, Sarah and Mike, on the new logo: 


The design community is blowing up over Hillary's new logo. I'm not really sure what all the fuss is about. Below are my "I'm not a designer" thoughts: 
Of course, immediately my eyes were drawn to the red arrow, which I interpreted as a resounding "NEXT!" It of course also evokes thoughts like "Move Forward," and "Progress." 
Looking deeper, I took note of the dimensions of the arrow and the two blue pillars that form the legs of the H. While they seem proportionate, they also seem quite large, with a seemingly large distance between them. I don't know if the wide H is meant to give the arrow prominence or not. Somehow the style of the H, its enormity, seems to take from its strength, rather than add to it. 
The blue and red are peculiar to me as well. I actually interpret the logo as cold. When I think of red and blue associated with America I think darker, warmer tones. Both of those tones are brighter, which I, as an individual, actually interpret as colder (i.e. some people find cooler blues, like teal, to be warm and inviting, I see them as literally icy). I think the bright colors may be meant to evoke the idea of a bright future, one that is vibrant and diverse (much like America), but this seems to have backfired as the colors are coming across as foreign. Some people are even likening the color scheme of the logo to that of Cuba's flag. Not good. 
Finally, the arrow and the H don't seem to mesh naturally. The arrow is clearly resting on top of the H. I don't know whether or not I want to fold the arrow's point so that the H becomes prominent again, or whether I want to push the arrow off altogether. 
In the end, I actually don't understand entirely why the design community has gone bonkers over Hillary's logo (except that they want their name trending with hers). Marco Rubio's logo seems less than inspired. 


OMG. Well. I didn't really have an opinion on this yesterday when I first saw it. I didn't love it and I didn't hate it. It just felt rather blah... and I'm not sure "forgettable" is what our first female president should be shooting for? She's such a strong lady, so I'm thinking that the fat legs of the H are meant to evoke that? I saw some people online yesterday comparing this to things like the Cuban flag, as Mike points out... but I also saw it compared to the shape of the Twin Towers on 9/11 and those funky tangram blocks we all played with in elementary school to learn different shapes. Two very different visualizations that carry with them strong emotional feelings. I might have gone for something with less room for ambiguity. You want your campaign logo to say clearly who you are, what you stand for, what you're all about... and this may just leave too much to the imagination.
You know I'm the biggest fan in the world of simple designs so in that sense alone I guess I would call it a win. But, I also think that a good logo has to work in a single color and this one couldn't. The one color version is actually TWO shades of transparent white... overlayed so that you can see the arrow sitting on top of the two legs of the H. Is this supposed to mean she's transparent? Is that a good thing? Am I over thinking this?!?! 


My first thought... simple is hard. Either you nail or you don't. In this case, it's not. I get that we are to, so to say, "move forward" with Hillary; however she is perceived as weak in this illustration. We, as American's, naturally want to go "forward" with a strong leader. If the symbol of that leader is anything less than as strong as they are, their message is lost, no matter how well intended the image of their character is. 
In terms of design, the hierarchy of the elements miss the mark on Hillary being the primary focus. Instead, the design says that "no matter what, we as as nation are moving forward... and maybe Hillary is the one to make this happen for us." The H is stubby or too insignificant to justify the power she needs to bring to the table. Combine this with the soft blue, we have a recipe for a possible "look right past me" situation. The eye stays going with the red of the arrow, leaving the viewer to keep right on going... without her. Not a good idea. Especially when the point is suppose to direct us to elect Hillary as our leader. 
My thoughts are my own. 


I totally kind of missed the whole arrow as directing AWAY from her... but I think that's maybe something I don't like that I just couldn't put my finger on. Maybe it's her way of saying, don't look at ME, look at what I can do for America?! She's been in the spotlight for so long that we all really already know who she is so maybe it's a way of directing focus in that regard? I guess what I'm wondering is if a total newbie like Marco Rubio could get away with such vague simplicity? Maybe other people feel compelled to spell their name out in a way that Hillary just doesn't feel compelled to do. Like, she's doesn't HAVE to tell you anything else. She's Hillary. Bam. Move forward. 


Yeeeaaaaaah. You know we are all probably overthinking something way too simple. Wired has a good explanation for the buzz around Hill's new logo. Check it out. 

Tell us what you think! Join the conversation on Twitter. Follow @MarkonBrands