Typography provides a meaning and an understanding about a product or a company; this is done unconsciously. It affects how the product or company will be sold to the consumer. In the corporate world, millions are spent on branding, and choosing the correct type is part of the process. The presidential candidates need to sell themselves to the public in order to get elected, so their choice of typography is not chosen by accident.
In the 2004 presidential election, there were comments in the New York Times which compared Kerry's and Bush's logos. According to the article (and by taking a look at both logos), Bush's typography was stronger and bolder and conveyed a sense of movement. It does not take much imagination to concur that Bush's logo would have shown up better on bumper stickers than the weaker Kerry's logo. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/09/opinion/09dadich.html?_r=1&th&oref=slogin
Where election campaign typography makes the most difference is in pre-election campaigns where there are several candidates who are virtually unknown to most of the population. Unconsciously, we decide what a candidate is going to be like, and part of this is based on their choice of typography.
Each candidate has his or her own approach to the typography that they are using to sell themselves to voters in the pre-election campaign. The following article provides an interesting discussion to the typography used in the campaigns and a brief analysis. This article can be read here: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/01/27/what_font_says_change/
Leave a comment