A friend asked me to create an arrow based avatar for Elizabeth Warren

[merrily]

7. Not sure why anyone wants an imitation H logo for Warren.

Last edited Fri Apr 17, 2015, 10:23 AM - Edit history (2)

Warren was the original. Hillary is parroting Warren.

Giving Warren an imitation H logo looks as though Warren (1) resents Hillary and (2) is pale imitation of Hillary. Nothing represents Warren less.

I am sorry, Dragonfli. I know someone asked you, but I just can't comment on the looks of the logo. I think it would make a a bad representation of Warren.

Finally, the first impression of Hillary's logo, many members of DU's left were laughing. I don't know why that made anyone say, "Warren needs a take off on that mockable logo!"

I am not even sure why a human being needs a logo. Obama's logo reminded liberals of the Pepsi logo, and therefore big business and corporatism. Not the message he wanted to send, even if he had TPP on his mind. Hillary's logo loos as though she's continuing to head rightward. I am very sure that is not the message she intended to send.

Why does a human being need a logo, anyway? Corporations use logos for branding so you know those chips and those pretzels are all from Nabisco or whomever. Warren's face and name and her life are her brand.

In the old days, people worked with what represented the candidates, period. Buttons with a face or a name or something very connected to them, something that remind people of something great about them. For example, for JFK PT 109 as the background for a JFK campaign button would evoke his war service, his heroism and his sacrificing himself to save others. (Even before he ran, the Kennedys gave out PT 109 tie clips and cuff links to everyone. I once met a college classmate of RFK who wore his every day. Now, THAT was good branding.)

And then, they'd come up with a slogan, like "I like Ike." For a campaign button or, how about something like

Warren Works
For YOU!


Didn't put much thought into that. We can do much better, but that is the direction I would go in. Not up down, backwards forwards, left or right, but what Warren is going to do for voters. Going old school, with human branding vs. corporate branding is a message in itself, in my opinion.



Here is what no candidate wants, IMO.

In 2010, Kaine was on the Daily Show. Stewart said the right was looking very strong for the midterm. Then he asked Kaine how Democrats planned to stop them. Kaine took out some keys and shook them in front of Stewart's face and said, "Don't give 'em back the keys!"

Stewart looked at Kaine incredulously and said, "That's it? That's all you've got? That's how you're going to stop the Republicans?"

Kaine replied something like, Yes, they're car keys. Don't give them back the keys to government. They''ll only put it in reverse."

Now, given the reaction of Stewart, who is uber Dem and uber smart, you'd think they would have come up with something else for the 2010 election, wouldn't you? But no, "Don't give them back the keys." was it. And it was as big a fail as Stewart's reaction suggested it would be.

(When your slogan or your logo requires divination and/or explanation, it's a fail.)

But here's the other thing: when Stewart asked the question, he obviously meant policy--what are you going to offer Americans to convince them to vote for you? In reply, Kaine shook at him a gimmicky piece of junk of the get that gets handed out at conventions, with a lame slogan. The whole thing, even if you understood it, stood for nothing but "D.C. Republicans bad." While true, that is not enough for a Party to run on. Make a promise, other than the vague "Forward." No candidate is going to run on going backwards.