Tells the story. Straight to the point.

I give the "H" ........ a "meh", ..............she obviously didn't overspend on graphics design.

By which I mean that adweek doesn't necessarily knows what they are doing.

Now a new Hillary?

that didn't go so well

Last edited Mon Apr 13, 2015, 12:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Almost as thought provoking as discussions about her hair style or clothing.

The arrow is headed there.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

I always enjoy it when corporations tell me that my opinion doesn't matter. It's so genuine.

"But even as Mrs. Clinton attempts to set aside her celebrity and offer herself as a fighter for ordinary voters, her finance team and the outside groups supporting her candidacy have started collecting checks in what is expected to be a $2.5 billion effort, dwarfing the vast majority of her would-be rivals in both parties."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-to-announce-2016-run-for-president-on-sunday.html?_r=0

Last edited Mon Apr 13, 2015, 01:19 PM - Edit history (1)

First things first: I don't think the logo matters one bit in terms of the campaign, and I think anyone complaining that the arrow goes to the right is just trolling.

That said: I'm not a graphic designer, but I do work in public affairs and so work with a lot graphic designers, social media experts, and web designers -- and over the years have picked up a bit on how they see things. So a couple of things do strike me about it:

1) Red-on-blue design is very tricky, and you have to pick the right shades to keep in from being hard on the eyes. This design fails in that respect.

2) It's really boxy. Boxiness is both boring and stodgy -- precisely the terms some use to describe Clinton herself, and what she's clearly trying to get away from. I know it would have been problematic for her to ape the Obama logo, but someone should have at least studied it -- because that was hands down the very best logo a presidential candidate has ever used.

I thought teh video was flat-out brilliant; this logo doesn't fit the vibe of the video at all.

It is 2015 after all.

Every time Hillary, one of the world's most influential people (and worth ~$100m), gets called a "victim" we should drink. Didn't realize valid criticism of a badly made logo entitled a supremely privileged person to victimhood status.

Not that it is super serious right now. I only mention it because if Hillary and her media friends want to do the "woe is me" angle on every criticism as a campaign strategy, she's beginning to make the same mistakes she made in 2008. Voters will tire of the "Hillary had a sad today" in her Hamptons estate when they're living paycheck to paycheck.

[url=http://postimage.org/][img][/img][/url]
[url=http://postimage.org/index.php?lang=french]téléchargement de photos[/url]