The Article about Joe Biden’s Logo Has A Problem I Can See

Joe Biden’s logo was recently released. But a Fast Company article saw something in his logo that isn’t there.

Political graphics has officially changed yall! We all know who was the reason for this major pivot: President Obama. His logo and visual brand identity system for his campaign was the first to go beyond the typical Americana graphics of stars, stripes, an eagle and a flag. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez grabbed headlines with her progressive views and for having one of the best visual identity campaigns since Obama. Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, IN who is also running for president, presently has a website and impressive online brand identity guide. 

This is all good news for graphic designers because it means…more work for us! A slew of other candidates running for president have released their logos as well. But social media is an unforgiving place so most of their logos are getting roasted for now. Former vice president Joe Biden has decided to join this already crowded field releasing his campaign logos.

Mark Wilson, a writer for Fast Company Magazine, wrote an article articulating the specifics of Biden’s logos and the intended meaning behind them. But then he allows a colleague to suck the air out of the room with a strange epiphany: The Letter E in Biden’s logos look like a hand suggesting that ol’ Joe has a tendency towards wandering hands. This will play well with his opponents considering the recent news cycle about Biden’s touchy feely behavior. Mark claims that since his colleague made him aware of this, he cannot ‘unsee’ it.

These logo criticisms are becoming common. Here are three examples:. 

• The airbnb logo was said to look like a woman’s genitalia. A video was made about it. (Who has that kind of time to make a video?)
• Secretary Clinton’s presidential campaign logo was criticized because the arrow was pointing to the right, which some interpreted as a shift to the right politically. (Doesn’t an arrow pointing to the right indicate moving forward?)
• In 2016, former CEO Travis Kalanick helped redesign the Uber logo. It was said to look like a butt hole. (It looks more like a backwards Letter C. Anyhoo, Uber rebranded again in 2018.)

My first response to Mark’s revelation? I looked at my hand. Then laughter…and more laughter! I thought we have 5 fingers? Even cartoon hands have 4 fingers. Let’s be real: these critiques that reek of hidden meanings aren’t about the logo. It is about something else. 

An Age of Anxiety

In this age of populism, terrorism and rapid change, many Americans feel like they are not in control of their destiny. A Time Magazine article talks about this anxiety suggesting that politicians, companies and the media have played a big part in figuring out how to trigger it. Fear often breeds paranoia and it shows itself in our social, cultural and political choices and disagreements. Right now, there are intense debates about freedom of speech, race and gender identity, sexual assault, gun control and the direction of the country that are not going to be resolved soon. For some, change is not a virtue. So, when a logo is changed or attached to a cause, it can raise questions about the mission of the company. Unfortunately, this sometimes produces irrational responses like protestors burning their Nike gear because of their Kaepernick ad.

The Impact of Call Out Culture

Call out culture uses aggressive language to embarrass someone or an entity. Just to be clear, I am highlighting the absurdity of the ‘red handed’ claim, not calling the writer out. Although shaming claims to expose lies, it has often helped promote fake news, superficial thoughts and alternative facts. It makes it easier to be fake outraged about a company’s logo rather than to ask about the process they used to create it. Calling out is not a conversation, it is a one way public screed meant to grab likes and shares. Sarcasm and performance figures heavily into these criticisms such as this one on Twitter:

Branding in the Mainstream

Because social media is where many people spend their virtual lives, branding has become a common term outside of the marketing world. Online discussions are everywhere. It is becoming common for consumers to comment on the brand messaging of a company. But do they possess the knowledge to give an informed opinion about the graphics, images and typography? Trained designers understand that the potential for misreading a logo in the digital age is high. Hard questions are baked into the logo development process and public relations plan to ensure clarity when the new logo is released. Although the general public understands some basics around branding and graphic design, the more rigorous analyses involving design thinking, Gestalt principles, design history and aesthetics theory that are used in the logo process are not well known.

It is these three developments that often intersect with these wild logo interpretations. The last paragraph in Mark’s article ends in a question. But it is telling:

“Surely, you cannot foresee every interpretation of a logo in an era when the MAGA hat is a design icon. But nobody thought about the repercussions of a red hand, for a powerful white man accused multiple times of uninvited contact?”

Although I disagree with Mark’s colleague about whether the Biden camp should take the supposed ‘red handed’ discovery seriously, campaigns must always be ready to respond to exaggerations and irrational questions about their logo.

Simply put, the main problem I see in these critiques is they may reveal a personal skepticism that is not always based on sound design principles which evitably can lead to weird conclusions.

What do you think?