Congratulations. This may be the stupidest post to ever grace this site.

Welcome back, Randy!! I'm dying to know what you think about Sarah Palin as your Veep.

I like her when she keeps her mouth shut. Her voice is annoying as hell. I never want to hear the term "Hockey Mom" ever again.

Randy, do yourself a favor and do about 60 seconds of research before posting insulting comments on a topic about which you obviously know nothing. Graphic Design is a 10+ billion dollar a year industry by conservative estimates. If branding and image weren't important fortune 500 companies would never spend a fraction of what they spend on print and web communications. Have you ever seen a multinational corporation's annual report? Like it or not, we live in a brand-driven world, and public figures are inseparable from their brand / image. I know that the real issues (the economy, healthcare, Iraq, etc) are what's most important, but everyone's already talking about those issues. I also know that people are psychologically influenced by design and I was hoping to generate some discussion along that line of thought.

Thanks buddy but I know a thing or two about graphic design. I'm a web developer and I sit right next to one. Thanks for the advice though. This post is just retarded. You know what the answer's gonna be. You just wanted another reason for an Obama love fest.

Beyond just wanting to know which is best and making disparaging comments about what qualifies as a smart post, there is some graphic design history being written with this campaign. The Obama campaign recognized early on that branding identity should be consistent. In the past it was common for state and local supporters to have a hand or even be in charge of stage settings, banners, etc. Doing so would result in a variety of designs being used. This campaign has made it a point to control marketing materials which has resulted in reflecting a uniform message no matter which state and town Obama has appeared. TV cameras would catch and present to the national audience an unchanging message. In the future we'll see a more tightly managed graphics environment in the political world.

I agree that design has an important role to play in our society, but that sort of thinking can be taken too far ... such as the stupendously bone-headed idea they had to make Obama his own presidential seal.

As for McCain/Palin, I would guess that to them, "branding" is something you do to a steer with a hot poker.

I think there is something to be said for the Obama logo thing. I remember seeing it somewhere by itself and recognizing it without even consciously ever noticing the logo before. It actually vaguely reminds me of the Heartland Film Festival logo.

As to how important it is to the campaign, I don't think it's going to make all the difference, but I do agree that with branding that way it gives more of an opportunity to have things like t-shirts, stickers, hats, etc. that are recognizable and can be equated with the candidate.

I do expect, though, that the moment the election is over we don't see that thing for at least another 4 years. I don't want to see billboards with the logo all over, and I surely don't want to see Obama to saunter out in front of the people wearing a hat with the logo.

In some ways I think this reflects the candidates and the campaign: Obama is doing something different with his branding, while McCain is favoring a more traditional approach, with the classy star (though the dark blue...I don't know...looks like the horrid new Indiana license plates). I'd say I think Obama's is more aesthetically appealing, brighter, slicker, but there's nothing inherently wrong with McCain's.

And to the average person I can see why this entire post I just wrote would seem a waste of time, but I'm a bit of a casual logo nerd too.

Politics aside, this is a completely valid conversation. Here what some experts have to say about the branding and marketing (that they argue does exist). The font used is Gotham. Thanks for the post DaveCombs.

Reading material:

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytim... http://typophile.com/node/31338 http://blog.novaurora.com/post/2... http://blog.cartelagency.com/200... http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blo... http://www.politico.com/blogs/be... http://adage.com/article?article... http://www.fastcompany.com/magaz... http://adage.com/campaigntrail/p...

Some words from Hofler Frere-Jones: http://www.typography.com/ask/sh...

A break down of many candidates logos from last year: http://www.logoblog.org/wordpres...

Just to name a few...

Cool logos don't make good presidents.

I think you may find the adage links interesting. There is a conversation about how the Obama campaign has redefined 'millenial marketing'. Campaigns are different than political platforms, unfortunately.

Good marketing does not always mean good products. Wasn't everyone griping about dropped calls on the iPhone 3G?

Nina, thanks for the links. Very interesting stuff. It's a valid point that cool logos and slick marketing guarantee neither good presidents nor good products. This is a bigger issue, but I believe that Americans in general are conditioned by advertising to buy into the "brand/image" that's being sold. I wasn't trying to instigate an Obama love fest, but rather a discussion about branding and how Obama's campaign has adopted the successful techniques of branding and mass marketing. I'm glad to see that a few people were picking up what I was laying down. Thanks for the responses.

1) Dave, great post!

2) Way to handle the negative response.

3) Nina, great info backing up Dave. Nicely done!

4) "I sit right next to one." That's classic! Thanks Randy, I needed a laugh.

5) Obamas' all the way. McCains' would have been "OK" in the early 80's

Some people just can't resist crapping on creativity. That is why I enjoyed the comments on this post more than the post itself.

As to the graphics, I like Obama's better, based on graphics alone.