Re: Fwd: Visual Identity / Design Rationale

From:john.podesta@gmail.com To: jennifer.m.palmieri@gmail.com Date: 2015-02-15 13:29 Subject: Re: Fwd: Visual Identity / Design Rationale

You and Jim want to come to town for dinner tonight? Trying out a new pasta machine. On Feb 15, 2015 9:13 AM, "Jennifer Palmieri" <jennifer.m.palmieri@gmail.com> wrote: > This diatribe make me like her. > > Sent from my iPad > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From:* Wendy Clark <hellowendyclark@me.com> > *Date:* February 14, 2015 at 11:53:52 PM EST > *To:* jennifer.m.palmieri@gmail.com > *Subject:* *Fwd: Visual Identity / Design Rationale* > > Jen, > > I apologize for inadvertently missing you from the distribution below. > > Not that your valentines night was missing a branding diatribe. Ha. > > Speak tomorrow. Wendy > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *Subject: **Visual Identity / Design Rationale* > *From: *Wendy Clark <hellowendyclark@me.com> > *Date: *February 14, 2015 at 9:10:21 PM EST > *Cc: *Robby Mook <robbymook2015@gmail.com>, Teddy Goff < > teddy.goff@gmail.com>, John Anzalone <john@algpolling.com>, Jeff Liszt < > jeff@algpolling.com>, Jim Margolis <Jim.Margolis@gmmb.com>, Mandy > Grunwald <GrunCom@aol.com>, kristinakschake@gmail.com, David Binder < > David@db-research.com> > *To: *Joel Benenson <jbenenson@bsgco.com> > > Joel, > > Thanks for taking time to outline your thoughts. > I have read them carefully and want to answer your questions and try to > address some of your concerns. > The makes for a long email, but I believe we’re at that point. > I’ve also added the rest of the team in here as our exchange may be > helpful for everyone. > > As we outlined on Friday’s team call, Teddy and I met with Pentagram on > Friday right before the 9am call and confirmed 3 streams of work that they > have been looking at for the last 24-36 hours. > > They are: > > 1. Hillary. — we need to determine if there is a similar technique that > addresses the inevitability that comes with the period. What everyone > lights to is the design asset that the period provides and can be applied > to other words with and without Hillary. However what does not work is the > implied emphasis of a period itself. There is no debate on what the core > mark would be on this route if there’s another option for the period. > > 2. H Window — while there’s lots of positive reaction for this direction > there’s also more to do in terms of getting the team and the Secretary > comfortable to go on this. In her feedback on our call her language of > “embracing people, embracing our problems and embracing our future” was > really helpful along with “reaching outwards to inspire upwards." How do > we imbue this approach with an even stronger sense of her passion and > motivation behind doing the job? She leans away from Hillary type or > Hillary signature, she’s unwilling for this to be so focused on her. While > we will maintain this as something to consider, per Mandy and Jim’s input > on the Friday call, we are seeking other solutions. So the core mark has to > work harder to her mission and/or attributes. The other thing we need to > add to this is the contextual relevance of a tagline and/or words as was > displayed on the Hillary. approach. That combination of words and design > consistency really compels everyone. How would we introduce words and/or a > tagline within the design route of the H Window? > > 3. Something else — the ideas that have been surfaced on H+You, &, + sign, > Together, Us, the President’s # idea and the Secretary’s language outlined > above need to be explored outside the constraints of the two existing > directions. I think the watch out here is to not get too clever or too > cutesy with symbols. > > You will see options within all three routes on our call tomorrow. > > On the design brief, we’ve been working against the version we all emailed > and socialized 3 weeks ago and a distillation of the core idea and > qualities/attributes was finalized on a call you, Mandy and I had. > I recognize there’s new insight since then, if there are core attributes > that the design should represent beyond the current brief that would be > important to agree on. In the meeting last week the Secretary seemed to > associate with what we had identified: fresh yet familiar, tenacity, > resilience, empathy, creativity, action-oriented, future focused. > > As to the Obama parallel, we’ve discussed in the presentations that > Obama’s campaign execution truly represented a turning point for political > branding in presidential campaigns — they in fact used what many would say > were widely accepted brand techniques that companies outside politics > historically use — contemporary colors and iconography, dynamic composition > in the mark, the mark to represent truths of the brand, etc. We all > observed in the political campaigns before Obama it was largely typesetting > with use of flag imagery, stars and photograph identity as the core design > assets used. > > And this use of branding has a lot to do with why I believe I’m here. > And why Pentagram and Michael Beirut are here. > > As you point out on Michael’s quote below, the Obama visual identity > changed how the design and branding community considered political brands. > > This benchmark sets the stage for a much more branded execution for > Secretary Clinton, and quite frankly a fairly high expectation of a branded > execution. > But at its core, great branding must always reflect the unassailable > truths of the brand. > And the best, most compelling brands in the world are singular and > relentless in their quest to do just this. > > We have a gift in the Hillary Rodham Clinton brand because of massive > recognition/awareness. Obama did not start with this. > At the same time we must create a new, fresh view of that familiar brand > in a truly authentic and compelling way. > > To be clear, a logo can communicate and aid attribution of qualities, but > it is not a proxy for the messaging of the campaign until they are > relentlessly connected and delivered, repeatedly and consistently. > That’s when brands take on meaning. > > As Michael has used previously, no one would look at a red Target logo and > think: design for all — fashionable yet affordable choices for my home and > family — expect more, pay less. But their relentless, contemporary, > fashion-forward products and aligned messaging has imbued that logo with > meaning just that. > > Similarly, Apple, the world’s most valuable brand, launched with their > rainbow apple mark in 1976. It simply stood for creativity, thinking > differently. Their repeated, consistent use of the mark along with some of > the world’s most creative advertising has imbued that bitten apple logo > with meaning but no one would look at that mark standalone and say it means > Apple is the leader in human-centered designed, electronic devices with a > vision for the future. > > And non-corporate examples are similarly rich in learnings. The Human > Rights Campaign simply uses the equality sign. It’s compelling, simple and > speaks to their core — being a relentless champion of equal rights for > humanity. There are plenty of other attributes that are associated with > HRC, but equality is their unassailable brand truth. > > So, here’s the point. We want to create a visual representation for > Secretary Clinton that is equally as compelling, interesting, exciting and > inviting as Obama’s mark was eight years ago. And to use techniques that > some of the best brands have done and continue to do around the world. And > again, the mark is simply one aspect of a bevy of connection points > (messaging, speeches, PR, advertising, web, etc.) > > And this leads me to explain, if I’ve failed to so far, why the H window > approach is so compelling to us. > > This approach will represent in 2015 what the Obama approach represented > in 2007. > It literally resets the benchmark for political branding, if not all > branding. > It is of and for the times leveraging the massive and important shift to > customization, personalization and co-creation. > And, more importantly, while meeting this marketplace shift the mark is, > at the same time, anchored on the unassailable truth of Secretary Clinton’s > life and career — being in service of others. It’s not about her, it’s > about you. It also meets our brief of fresh yet familiar, it shows > creativity and empathy. > > Now, we have work to do. > While this direction is immediately compelling and will fuel advocacy from > her fans and drive conversation and content around and for the campaign, we > have yet to effectively land its core manifestation. > And while we’re likely to use it in numerous variations and iterations as > it is so flexible to do, we have to have an anchoring point. > And in honesty we’ve struggled to land that core mark to everyone’s > confidence and liking. > > We’ll share some more iterations tomorrow. > One in particular introduces another attribute — future-focus — and a > design asset like the period from option 1 that is interesting. > > But for this conversation, I don’t want our relentless efforts to make the > core mark work construed as being obstinate. > It’s simply that we believe this approach would be level-setting for the > candidate and campaign and are determined to land the core mark so we can > reap the benefits of this approach. > > Some final assurance, you will also see completely new exploration to get > a sense of other approaches tomorrow and Michael/Pentagram has added two > other senior partners into their effort to engage in the work, the > limitation until now was set by us for confidentiality purposes. > > If you’ve read this far, I appreciate the chance to frame the opportunity, > underscore our continued confidence and provide any clarity. > > A revised deck will be coming shortly. > > Thanks. Wendy > > > > On Feb 14, 2015, at 12:33 PM, Joel Benenson <jbenenson@bsgco.com> wrote: > > All, > I have a nagging concern that was reinforced at the meeting on Wednesday > and while it’s not keeping me up at night I just want to share it with the > three of you to address however you see fit. > > From the time the broader group was brought into the meeting at Pentagram > there has been a concern about the static nature of the mark, the lack of > action or anything suggesting forward movement etc. Each time we were told > there would some exploration in a new direction. We have had several calls > along the way and the meeting this week where we thought we would see > something in a new direction and we really haven’t. To me, a new direction > means a new concept something different from the idea of the “window,” > which is one concept but we really haven’t been shown anything else. > > I don’t think it’s fair to compare things repeatedly to the Obama mark but > I think the process – or at least what’s been written and said about its > development, might be worth looking at again. The “O” because linked to an > identify that was not only positive and suggestive, it was also reflective > who Obama was and what he represented. There was a rising sun, a path or > road both of which suggest movement. Apart from the design issues have > raised, conceptually a window is two dimensional object and the core > quality Pentagram is affixing to it (transparent, open) only get us to the > use cases as Teddy says and not to the core qualities about H that we are > trying drive and communicate. > > I would also like to press Michael to match what he said himself about > Obama’s mark/brand. > > Designer Michael Bierut <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bierut> called > Obama's branding "just as good or better" as the best commercial brand > designs. "Every time you look, all those signs are perfect," Beirut said. > "Graphic designers like me don't understand how it's happening. It's > unprecedented and inconceivable to us. The people in the know are > flabbergasted." > > At this point, I tihnk it would be wise to do one or both of the following: > > · Review the brief to assess whether we are or not asking them to > execute against the right things (we now have research getting us closer to > our core rationale, attributes etc.) > · Ask Pentagram to develop something, perhaps with a different > team, that is truly different from the territory we have already seen and > possibly get 1 or 2 small firms to take a crack at this so we generate > some healthy competition. > > This is not a knock on Michael or Pentagram, who are terrific in the world > of corporate branding. But I think we’re looking for something in the mark > can present the discipline of a corporate brand while creating the truly > dynamic potential we want in a political mark. > > Thanks, > > Joel > > > >