Urgent : "DESIGN Ron's Campaign Sign" Contest

Should Ron Paul Change his Campaign Sign Design?

  • Yes, it needs a refresh

    Votes: 31 73.8%
  • No, keep the design, change the year.

    Votes: 11 26.2%

  • Total voters
    42
I think it would be interesting to give Ron Paul a campaign sign that is totally different then what's been done in the past. I made this one:

ronpaulendthesystem-1.png
 
Last edited:
Apparently the mods are the only 3 people who voted that the design doesn't need to be changed? (I voted "no" by accident because I initially messed up the wording of the answers). I assume it's because they're purists. From a perspective of someone on the outside looking in, the sign is uninspiring and dated. period.

AND this is urgent because once Ron announces, you can be sure as hell the official campaign will begin having his signs prepared shortly thereafter.

In regard to Ron's sign having built "brand equity", did it matter that obama had no "brand equity" before 08? No. He had a great design, and it paid off.

Imagine Ron's '08 sign saying "Barack Obama" instead of Ron Paul. Would Barack have fared so well if that was the case? Compare that to the stylized "O", modern font, and vibrant colors that Barack did have. Even McCain had a sharp looking design.

I'm not some nobody speaking on this topic. I've been doing corporate branding professionally for years.
 
Last edited:
Apparently the mods are the only 3 people who voted that the design doesn't need to be changed? (I voted "no" by accident because I initially messed up the wording of the answers). I assume it's because they're purists.

Try not to make too many assumptions. Differing opinions are ok. No one closed your thread, some anonymous person voted no.
 
The standard blue one is fine, but if you guys can make a better one, go for it.
 
Ron Paul : America's Anchor In Troubled Waters

(with an anchor on it)?
 
Last edited:
Apparently the mods are the only 3 people who voted that the design doesn't need to be changed? (I voted "no" by accident because I initially messed up the wording of the answers). I assume it's because they're purists. From a perspective of someone on the outside looking in, the sign is uninspiring and dated. period.

AND this is urgent because once Ron announces, you can be sure as hell the official campaign will begin having his signs prepared shortly thereafter.

In regard to Ron's sign having built "brand equity", did it matter that obama had no "brand equity" before 08? No. He had a great design, and it paid off.

Imagine Ron's '08 sign saying "Barack Obama" instead of Ron Paul. Would Barack have fared so well if that was the case? Compare that to the stylized "O", modern font, and vibrant colors that Barack did have. Even McCain had a sharp looking design.

I'm not some nobody speaking on this topic. I've been doing corporate branding professionally for years.

Then you should understand what brand equity means.

Picture 7.png
 
I think there is credence to 'brand equity', but at the same time Ron's sign looks dated. I think changing the solid blue to a slightly gradient blue would help 'modernize' the sign just a bit while keeping the core look.

With an older candidate, it will definitely help us to have 'young' and 'modern' branding.
 
I like the "Not for Sale", the origami dollar, and end the system.
I think people are getting fed up with government and politics as usual, and they want someone really different. Only 30 something percent of people vote, RP should campaign towards the other 70% as well.
In my mind, RP's integrity and honesty, regardless of his positions, make him more qualified to be president than anyone else.
 
rp12.png


Someone can edit/roll with this idea, but I was trying to mock the Obama color theme.
 
Back
Top