Since Hillary Clinton announced her run for the democratic nomination earlier this week, I’ve heard very little about her message. Instead, the internet is fixated on her abominable campaign logo. My social media streams are flooded with criticism. I’ve read several posts and seen dozens more. Many designers have offered significantly superior versions. The memes are exploding. One designer has gone as far as creating an entire alphabet from the design. Hillvetica.

I don’t want to dwell on why the logo doesn’t work. There’s more than enough criticism out there. It’s the level of the criticism the logo has experienced that I find surprising. The logo has become the Hillary Clinton story. It’s hard to have your message heard when the media is focused on another tangent. A New York Times article was titled, “Shooting Arrows at Hillary Clinton’s New Campaign Logo”.

A logo is a brand asset. It should work for you not against you. In contrast to Clinton, the Obama campaign logo was hailed for it’s positive impact. As a designer, I constantly stress the value of brand identity and how important it is to get it right. Bad branding decisions are damaging. Clearly, that’s the message here.

Update: It is interesting in this article about the best and worst of 2016 US presidential candidate logos, that the Hillary logo is considered both best and worst.