To many graphic design experts of both political stripes, Hillary Clinton’s new logo would be better off in the trash bin.

The presumptive Democratic presidential frontrunner unveiled as her campaign logo a blue ‘H’ and a rightward-facing red arrow. It’s blanketed all over her website and sits at the top of her new Facebook page. On her revamped Twitter handle, the ‘H’ has even taken the place of the iconic picture of Clinton wearing dark shades and reading her Blackberry.


Some high-minded critics say it’s all wrong. The arrow’s direction and its Republican-minded red color, for starters, has raised alarm that she’s signalling an imminent political shift to the right.

Going with an abstract design has also opened the door to all manner of Internet fun: a new copycat font dubbed “Hillary Bold” and a do-it-yourself widget that lets anyone make their own Clinton-like logo, and plenty of odd interpretations, including a plane hitting New York’s Twin Towers and rip-offs of the Federal Express and Wikileaks logos.

“I think the Hillary logo is really saying nothing,” said Scott Thomas, the design director for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign and who later worked on the Whitehouse.gov website’s redesign. “It’s just a red arrow moving to the right.”

Michael Bierut, a New York-based designer at Pentagram who created the new Clinton logo as a volunteer contribution to the campaign, declined a request for an interview. But on social media, he responded to the controversy by noting the new-found interest in a 2013 article he wrote about graphic design in which he described the knee-jerk public criticism over new logos and branding as a “spectator sport, and anyone can play.”

Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin simply said in an email, “We’ll leave it to others to read too far into our logo.”

Clinton isn’t the first member of the 2016 presidential field to face Monday-morning quarterbacks dubious of campaign branding — and given the permanence of snark-heavy social media, she certainly won’t be the last.

Ted Cruz, first out of the gates last month in announcing an official White House campaign, got mocked for an image of a red, white and blue flame near his name that conjured up comparisons to a soft-serve ice cream cone, a tear drop or an American flag on fire. Rand Paul was dubbed an uninspiring bore for going with a Statue of Liberty-like torch hovering above his name. Marco Rubio, for dotting the ‘i’ in his last name with a map of the continental United States, angered the Hawaii and Alaska vote.

Obama’s 2008 and 2012 logos — an iconic ‘O’ that went through numerous iterations widely interpreted as a rising sun — loom as the best-in-class benchmarks.

Of course, campaigns are hardly won or lost on a logo. But political veterans say this remains a critical branding event – just think of the buzz surrounding Obama’s ‘O’ back in 2007 or even how donkeys and elephants during the 19th century came to be associated with Democrats and Republicans. A good logo can go a long way in the modern-day digital era where campaigns are desperately trying to reach attention-starved possible voters, volunteers and donors via their phones and Facebook feeds. Create an easy-on-the-eyes brand and it can pay big dividends as someone decides whether to open yet another email message from a politician, or just hit delete.

“A strong brand identity can communicate your message and your values to a potential voter with a single glance, without you having to buy an ad or even say a single word,” said Patrick Ruffini, a GOP digital strategist who managed online efforts for the Bush-Cheney 2004 reelection campaign.

The presidential candidates of 2016 are facing perhaps the toughest audience yet when it comes to their design elements. Obama’s 2008 and 2012 logos — an iconic ‘O’ that went through numerous iterations widely interpreted as a rising sun — loom as the best-in-class benchmarks. Twitter and other social media allow for instant criticism, and there’s the prospect that the reaction to a new logo can go even more viral than the logo itself.

Consider the response since Clinton unveiled her logo less than a week ago. On the online image hosting service Imgur, more than 1.1. million views have landed on a post featuring a “five-minute” redesign of Clinton’s logo that turns the image entirely to different shades of blue and adds in a more curved arrow which “gives the logo a feeling of energy and life.”

In the New Yorker, a daily cartoon published shortly after the Clinton launch depicted two people looking at a campaign poster with the ‘H’ logo and this caption: “I’m just not entirely sure a big red arrow pointing right is the best logo for a Democratic candidate, is all.”

“Obama’s ‘O’ was handled with a certain amount of nuance and elegance and Hillary’s ‘H’ has none of that nuance or elegance,” said Steven Heller, a design critic and former art director at The New York Times. The Clinton logo, he added, looks like she’s overtly trying to avoid using her last name. “Her name is Hillary. We don’t know her as Ms. H,” he said.

That Clinton’s logo has prompted such an instant and varied reaction “speaks to the value and importance people now place on design everywhere, not just in politics,” Ruffini said.

Some of the current Republican contenders' logos.

“People expect a seamless, well-designed experience in the products they use, and candidates are following this trend,” he said. “The challenge candidates face is that designing a brand requires an entirely different skills from designing your normal yard-sign fare. You have to think about design at a higher level, and there’s a fine line between genius and cringe-worthiness.”

“There’s a higher penalty for getting it wrong,” Ruffini added, “but also a bigger upside to getting it right.”

Despite the criticisms, the 2016 campaigns so far are signaling they think they got their logos just right. Paul’s website, for example, peddles $35 t-shirts, $20 sandals and $150 Ray-Ban sunglasses featuring the flame above the Kentucky Republican’s first name. “Senator Rand Paul has always stood for liberty and what better represents liberty then lady liberty’s torch,” said his campaign spokesman, Sergio Gor. He confirmed that the Paul campaign created its logo with an in-house designer.

Cruz plans to use the red, white and blue torch on most of his campaign literature and other swag too. “It’s all about reigniting the promise of America,” said Chris Wilson, a senior Cruz digital, research and analytic strategist. “I think it does a very good job of conveying our messaging.”

A Rubio spokesman would say only that the Florida Republican’s new logo “speaks for itself.”

While avoiding any detailed comment on its logo, Clinton’s campaign has tried to have some fun with the reaction by posting a link to a Washington Post story unveiling a tool that lets users make their own logos with the same font. “Putting Hillary Bold to good use,” her campaign wrote on Twitter.

Clinton’s logo has also picked up a number of defenders who say they expect the icon to evolve over the course of the presidential campaign, just as Obama’s did by tweaking color shades, fonts, spacing and when he added Joe Biden to the ticket. For now, the logo has started to serve a purpose by using the arrow on the website to point visitors toward links for volunteers and fundraising.

“It’s showing people what to do to take ownership in the campaign, and I think that’s smart,” said Matt Compton, the digital director of the Democratic National Committee.

Opting for a logo that has just her first initial and avoids mention of her first or last name likely wasn’t done without some considerable foresight, said Betsy Hoover, a former Obama campaign online organizer and partner at the consulting firm 270 Strategies. ‘Because she has the name ID, this is something she can afford to do,” Hoover said.

As for the red arrow? Hoover said the color “adds a level of complexity” that signals Clinton will be making a play to reach beyond her traditional alliance of voters.

”It distinguishes her and says, ‘Yes, I’m a Democratic candidate right now, but I’m also running for everyone,’” she said.

But to many campaign design veterans, the new Clinton logo is a disappointment. Thomas, who wrote a book on his Obama campaign experience that included a foreword by Bierut, said he’s surprised such a well-known designer produced the ‘H’ logo. “A lot of people are scratching their heads,” he said. “‘Wow, that’s what they ended up with?’”