Both the New York Times (on 11/18/07) and the Boston Globe (on 1/27/08) recently published pieces critiquing the graphic designs of various 2008 campaign logos. Considering that both papers are owned by the same parent company, one might expect them to have similar slants to the story. Here’s how the two compared:

NY Times on Hillary Clinton:

Boston Globe on Hillary Clinton:

The Hillary type palette is far from fresh and colorful; it is begging for legitimacy instead of demanding respect. It projects recycled establishment. The type has a tired feeling, as if the ink has been soaking into the page too long. The Hillary logo has the look of an ’80s newspaper layout or an investment company. The tall lower-case reminds me of someone with their pants pulled up too high. I wonder about the significance of the three stars and three stripes. A third term?

Comparison:

Both agree that the choices made were conservative. The Times however thinks the choices were interesting, the Globe finds them tired and recycled.

NY Times on John Edwards:

Boston Globe on John Edwards:

Edwards is the only candidate to use a sans serif typeface for his main typeface. Sans serif typefaces do not have the added elements at the ends of the vertical and horizontal strokes. Unlike many of the traditional sans serifs used in campaigns, Edwards’s typeface is open and friendly. It’s utilitarian. In past campaigns, Edwards used a serif typeface. Perhaps he is subtly distancing himself from his unsuccessful 2004 bid. The Edwards type is very Wal-Mart, tabloid, middle class. Not a whiff of high-powered lawyer.

Comparison:

Both focus on Edwards’s attempt to distance himself from his 2004 campaign failure.

New York Times on Barack Obama:

Boston Globe on Barack Obama:

Obama’s type is contemporary, fresh, very polished and professional. The serifs are sharp and pointed; clean pen strokes evoke a well-pressed Armani suit. The ever-present rising sun logo has the feeling of a hot new Internet company. His sans serifs conjure up the clean look of Nike or Sony. This typography is young and cool. Clearly not the old standards of years past.

Comparison:

Both focus on the positive effect the logo has on its intended audience, young people. The Times, in its piece written before Obama had really started to perform, sees it as sloppy and unprofessional; the Globe sees it as just the opposite–well imagined and executed. Could Obama’s campaign victories have changed the way we (or at least the critics) see his logo?

NY Times on Mitt Romney:

Boston Globe on Mitt Romney:

Uppercase can attract attention and project boldness, which is probably why the Romney campaign set his name in all caps. It works pretty well for ‘Romney’. The letters fit comfortably and form a pretty solid unit.

Unfortunately, MITT does not lend itself well to this treatment. The two T’s create a big space between them compared with the space between the MI or, to a lesser extent, the IT. The result is an irregular rhythm and feeling of inconsistency. The graphics are puzzling. The eagle logo has the head of the US Postal Service logo and body of the Norwegian flag flowing behind it. Not sure what that means.

Comparison:

Both comment on the odd, postal-service style bird flopping its way across the page. Clearly that was an error on Romney’s part.

NY Times on Rudy Guiliani:

Boston Globe on Rudy Guiliani:

Like Clinton, Giuliani has abandoned his last name nearly completely. Rudy is four easy-on-the-eyes letters set in a strong serif with an eye-catching red border. It is set in a strong, bold serif typeface; the serifs themselves are clear and decisive. Using his short four-letter name allows him to set it particularly large. His message is all about Rudy, name recognition. The enlarged R introduces the other letters like a big, protective parent.

Comparison:

Both papers see this as a strong response to Hillary’s one name approach, with the large ‘R’ and the strong border effectively conveying the message of strength and safety. Everyone likes Rudy, apparently.

NY Times on John McCain:

 

 

Boston Globe on John McCain:

McCain uses type that is a perfect compromise between a sans and a serif, what type geeks call a “flared sans.” Not quite sans and not quite serif, sort of in between, moderate, not too far in either direction. The strokes have contrast between the thick and thin, creating the feeling that the ends are going to have cute little serifs, but they just flare out a little, not forming actual serifs but wanting to. The military star centered and shadowed is a not-so-subtle touch. And McCain just says “President,” as if to say he’s already been elected. Everything about this logo says you can buy a car from this man. From the perfectly centered star to the perfectly spaced type, the entire design looks like a high-end real estate company. McCain has done something no other candidate has done, he uses all blue, no red - not even a dash. If we were to predict the results based on typography and design, we would pick McCain and Obama.

Comparison:

Both find the military star a little bit hit-you-over-the-head, but after that the analysis diverges. The NY Times thought the design lacked direction and had an incomplete feel to it. The Globe, however, felt the logo was very smooth, simple, and trust-inducing.

Like the Obama analysis, I wonder whether the fact that the Boston Globe piece was written after McCain’s surge led them to declare his design a winner. In fact, the Globe picked Obama and McCain as the two best designs overall — is it really a coincidence that the two candidates who have surged in the month between when the NY Times story was posted and when the Boston Globe story was posted are the two that the Globe considered the most effective? I think the critics (at least the Globe’s Sam Berlow and Cyris Highsmith) are being unduly influenced by the popular effectiveness of the logos and not the designs of the logos themselves. This is why movie reviewers write their reviews before the public gets a chance to watch a movie, not after.

Thanks jbg.