Your Logo, Mr. President

Via email:

“Dear John,

I publish a magazine that teaches graphic design, and last Friday we opened an online poll that asks, "Graphically speaking, who has the better campaign poster?" The poll will be open through election day.

http://www.bamagazine.com/BushKerry/

Response was immediate: Bush 4 to 1. We’ve posted a critique of our own.

Thought you might find this up your alley. Madison Avenue knows that good looks can change minds. In a close election, could design make the difference?

Thanks.”

A few weeks ago, the New York Times also published an Op-Ed and visual analysis on the subject, followed by subsequent letters to the editor.

But then isn’t talking about a candidate’s poster style a lot like talking about who looks more “Presidential” in a televised debate? It privileges rhetoric over substance, and implies that the candidates are basically the same when they meet on the neutral playing field of design. Who has more “charisma”? Which is more “authentic”? Familiarity with a candidate’s record is irrelevant to look and feel and, subsequently, everyone’s subjective opinion is equally valid.

Which is not to say that rhetoric and impression are not relevant. In such a tight race, small differences do count.