Comments on: Obama’s Presidential Logo.

By: admin

admin — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:46:00 +0000

Thanks Mike. I agree!

John Follis

By: mike w

mike w — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:53:48 +0000

Don’t be silly. This emblem completely symbolizes is purpose, to be president. Some say it is presumptious, but is it presumptious for Nike to name itself that when Nike translates to Victory? It’s optimistic foreshadowing and when seen enough, may tap into the subconscious of a few on-the-fence voters.

I also admire the fact that the original Obama O is placed on the Eagle’s center.

Savvy/10

By: Marisa

Marisa — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:36:18 +0000

I agree whole-heartedly with Steve (see below) - poor logo design - we don’t want the same old thing! We need something fresh and new! How about progressive even!

# steve Says:
June 28th, 2008 at 7:03 pm

Shows incredibly bad judgment. Presumputous, arrogant, dumb. And to top it off, a bad design. He’s not president yet. And if he continues these kinds of antics, he’ll wind up yet another democratic presidential candidate who blew it.

By: Char

Char — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 01:26:27 +0000

Frankly, I think it is a foolish mistake…besides the bad and reiministant design , it will definately go against his mission.
His backers will “fluff it off”, but the people that are either on the fence or against him will see it as an arrogant move and those are the people he is trying to persuade into his corner.
A frivolous move, since it can only hurt rather than help his campaign
Quite the opposite of a positive marketing plan

By: Elle

Elle — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:26:27 +0000

Graphically, the Eagle ain’t Phat! and the logo is cheesy.

By: iwa

iwa — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:15:06 +0000

for the effectiveness, I hardly can see this logo will change people’s mind to support him from the opposite.

In general, it has two-side impact. one: it obviously can convince much his followers or people like this way; second, it might irratate some people in different style. so the savvy part might be a) reminds people of his ambitions; b) it could help him differentiate the voters.

Meanwhile, it shows he or his team is not yet sophisticated and confident enough. It shows again he is young. But it fits him. This might be the 3rd savvy part.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:58:15 +0000

Little bit of both. It is undoubtedly savvy marketing. But instead of using the word “Arrogance” I would say “Confidence”.

By: Suzi

Suzi — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:18:22 +0000

Well, we’re all talking about it so arrogance or intentional savvy aside, it’s a mute point.

By: Daryl

Daryl — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:56:33 +0000

I think it’s neither savy or arrogant.

I think it’s too simple of an ad campaign to make me think otherwise. Yes they always say Keep It Simple Stupid but I believe as a person running for President of the United States you must go beyond simple and prove you are the one to be elected. There is still a long road ahead for both presidental candidates and I belive this simple ad will not prove himself to the general public.

And to me it is not arrogant because arrogance comes from one when they know they are already victorious. To me this may have been considered arrogant when he was running against Hilary Clinton.

By: Steve Higgins

Steve Higgins — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 02:49:04 +0000

The “seal” looks like something a high school student would do - silly, amateurish and yes, arrogant at the same time.
I agree with Elli that the seal is a perfect symbol of the shallow, “buzzword” nature of the Obama campaign. Change. Wow that ’s a new concept.
And all of you guys who responded to this query with over-the-top attacks against Bush sound even sillier than this seal looks — what does anything Bush has done have to do with judging this seal on its merits as a marketing strategy? Nothing. Your comments simply give further credence to the obvious, that rabid Bush-haters all have a one-track mind.