Is Hillary Clinton’s Logo Design Really That Bad?

2 min read · 7 years ago


As everyone now knows, Hillary Clinton is running for the Democratic nomination in the upcoming presidential election. When she announced her intentions earlier this week, she unveiled the branding of her campaign to a flurry of criticism, parody, and ridicule. The consensus was pretty clear that most people hated her new logo.

Is the criticism and the negative backlash an accurate indication of whether or not this is a good logo? Let’s consider some defining qualities of a good and effective logo to answer that question.

A good logo should be…

  • Visually appealing
  • Representative
  • Memorable
  • Unique
  • Simple

So, based on that criteria, how does her logo compare? The majority of the criticism around the logo seemed to focus on the fact that people thought it was ugly and bore negative connotations (like Cuba’s flag). As a designer and a consumer, I have to give it failing grades on visual appeal. It’s not that attractive and it’s not very creative.

Is it representative? It’s blue and red which are common political colors and easily associated with American patriotism, so yes, it’s representative. At the same time, the arrow, I expect, is meant to portray progress but it’s incredibly ironic that there’s very little offered in progressive creativity in this logo. Nobody will look at it and say that it’s pushing the boundaries for logo design or branding. It’s extremely safe and bland in that regard.

Is it memorable? It definitely is memorable. It provokes a reaction and that’s why it’s become so newsworthy. It invites its audience to form an opinion and this means that we will stare at it longer and take notice. Any logo that does this is fulfilling this criteria, so I give it high praise for this condition.

Is it unique? At first glance, it doesn’t appear to be very unique, but hardly anyone who follows current events will fail to identify that logo and associate it with Hillary at this point. It’s generated so much buzz and attention that we all know what it is and what it’s for. Because of this, it will stand out quite a bit making it, while not very creative, ironically unique.

Simplicity? Yep. Not much else can be said if we don’t admit that it’s very simple.

It may not be visually appealing or have a strong representation for the principles that most politicians say they stand for, but it’s attracted a lot of attention to her campaign. This is an important lesson to learn when it comes to logo design. A good logo isn’t merely attractive. It needs to be just as good at meeting the other conditions as well. So, if you’re pursuing a branding process for your own organization, try to keep that all in perspective. Overall, I’d give her logo a 3.5 out of 5 with bonus points for the amount of buzz it’s generated and the ease with which we can all identify it with her…which is really powerful brand recognition.

This article was syndicated from Business 2 Community: Is Hillary Clinton’s Logo Design Really That Bad?

More Sales & Marketing articles from Business 2 Community: