Because of the nature of my work I pay a lot of attention to branding, and while walking the exhibit floor at CPAC my eye was caught by a branding choice so odd that I have to comment on it.
In way of background, here is the traditional male symbol:
Here is the traditional female symbol:
Here is the usual symbol for traditional heterosexual marriage:
Here is the symbol for a male homosexual marriage:
Here is the symbol for a lesbian marriage:
This symbol would logically represent someone who is transgendered:
All makes sense so far, right? The conventions of this system are consistent and easy to understand.
Here is the symbol I encountered at CPAC on the booth of the National Organization for Marriage, a group which opposes any kind of same-sex marriage:
Based on the graphic conventions shown in the first examples, looking at the symbol being used by the National Organization for Marriage, I can only assume that they are advocating some sort of marriage between androgynous beings completely lacking in sexual identity - perhaps very regularly shaped amoebae or some other single celled organism, or perhaps they are proposing marriage without sex or gender roles, though that seems just as unlikely.
I assume they were trying to send some sort of message with their choice of symbols - maybe wedding rings or abstinence or something - but the only read I get off of it is marriage between beings whose genital areas are as smooth and featureless as circles - perhaps Barbie and Ken. It certainly suggests a driving fear of sexuality.
Article comments
1 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
Interesting article. In my own opinion I believe you thought about the branding issue a bit too deeply...but then I have to remind myself that you are the professional when it comes to these matters - you do it for a living. So instead of dismissing the finer points of your argument, I'll shut up and listen since you know what you're talking about and I don't. And thanks for the short seminar in some of what goes into developing a professional logo.
2 - lala
Project much?
3 - lala
Perhaps your concept of an appropriate "symbol" for marriage being based only on sex is the problem. The intertwining of a male and female "symbol" usually represents the sex act, and you can combine your symbols however way you wish. I think it the symbols are a weird remnant of the Astrological sign-loving 70's more than anything else. The double rings are symbolic of other things--eternity, etc. Not genitalia.
4 - Zingzing
Glenn, I think you missed a bit of the humor here, or at least didn't acknowledge it.
And Dave, as far as colored rings go in branding, I think you missed an opportunity to compare it with the Olympics' similar motif of interlocking rings, designed to suggest inclusiveness, as opposed to this organization, which promotes the exclusivity of the word and "institution" of marriage as somehow belonging to heterosexuality.
Lala, have you seen Dave? Not very androgynous... I shudder at the thought. I'm sure dave would as well.
5 - Dave Nalle
Zing, you have a point, but I was reluctant to take that line of analysis too far.
Also, if I were to criticize it in a more professional way my objection would be to the ambiguity of the symbolism. Putting aside anything sexual, it's just too generic to communicate anything powerful. Doesn't stand out enough to provide an effective hook.
Plus there's the Audi logo and the Chanel logo which could be dragged into it as well.
Dave
6 - Glenn Contrarian
Y'know, there's a joke somewhere here just waiting to be told about all the logos described and the obvious connection to "circular logic".
But then that would only take us back to where we started....