jump to navigation

The New “Solidarity” logo March 10, 2017

Posted by irishelectionliterature in Uncategorized.
trackback

After the discussion about the new name for The AAA
Here is the new logo….
C6jHgkvV4AAMVYx

Advertisements

Comments»

1. EWI - March 10, 2017

Needs an Irish alternate title 😈

Like

2. alanmyler - March 10, 2017

The logo is apparently a stock one from Getty Images:

You’d image a bit more thought might have gone into something like that. Someone noted the similarity with the FG logo also:

The historical resonances with Solidarnosc and the undermining of actually existing socialism is another issue. But Militatnt probably supported that at the time so maybe not.

Like

irishelectionliterature - March 10, 2017

Thats pretty poor if it’s a stock image

Like

alanmyler - March 10, 2017

I think “Sad” would be the fashionable word these days.

Like

irishelectionliterature - March 10, 2017

The stock image is called “Vector Icon Team Star, Group of People” ……. I wonder was that another option for the AAA name change 🙂

Like

Aonrud ⚘ - March 10, 2017

It’s hardly the most important thing, but the logo is a bit generic. I had this image from the last election:

The above isn’t too far from them, with a touch of the Ubuntu circle of people logo about it as well:

Anyway, enough nit-picking – best of luck to them.

Liked by 2 people

RosencrantzisDead - March 10, 2017

Bears some similarity to US Army insignia

Hmm…

Like

3. GW - March 10, 2017

I’m not that hung up on logos, but I think it’s fine.

‘A Left Alternative’ rather than ‘The one true etc…’ would I guess be too much to hope for from a Leninist party.

Like

4. irishelectionliterature - March 10, 2017

Solidarity is also the name of the split from The Scottish Socialist Party that Tommy Sheridan is involved in.

Like

5. Aonrud ⚘ - March 10, 2017

Sure it’s not real until you’re in the timeline 🙂

http://www.clririshleftarchive.org/page/timeline-of-the-irish-left/#find-Solidarity

Liked by 1 person

6. Liberius - March 10, 2017

I think I can see what they were thinking with the logo, however there are far too many colours for me, it looks confused. Still, step forward with the name.

Like

7. Mick 2 - March 10, 2017

I hadn’t realised this was happening. I’ve always thought the Anti-Austerity Alliance was a crap name, to be honest. Having “anti” as the first word of your party (or electoral alliance or whatever) name feeds into the whole “arrah shur you’re against everything; what are you for?” establishment narrative. I’m just sad I never got to hear anyone in the Dáil attempt the Irish for AAA-PBP. :(((

https://ga.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comhghuaill%C3%ADocht_Frith-Dh%C3%A9ine-Comhghuaill%C3%ADocht_an_Phobail_roimh_Bhrab%C3%BAs

Like

8. dermot - March 11, 2017

Jesus lads, you can do better. At least get rid of the balls. Here’s a quick mock up I made.

Like

9. roddy - March 11, 2017

Its on the button.Everything’s on there to symbolise their “federation of the British isles”!

Like

10. Gerryboy - March 11, 2017
11. Jolly Red Giant - March 11, 2017

In all honesty – this thread is a load of nonsense.

Instead of taking the launch of Solidarity as an opportunity to debate how the left can advance – we get the tripe on here.

Like

WorldbyStorm - March 11, 2017

It’s not nonsense or tripe. People have an absolute right to discuss within reasonable constraints of courtesy any political matter whatsoever. The rebranding of a political formation is a political matter. A fairly significant one at that. And it is entirely reasonable to critique a visual identity – probably the primary identifier most people will encounter of Solidarity – indeed more people will see the logo than meet a member of same.

Like

Jolly Red Giant - March 11, 2017

WbS – it’s petty nonsense -and you know it.

By all means let’s have a discussion about what this name change means and the implications of it.

But posting a series of similar logos and making petty comments is not in any way productive.

Like

WorldbyStorm - March 11, 2017

There’s something – what’s the words – about someone who is a member of a political party coming and complaining that others shouldn’t talk about something relating to that party – particularly when the topic has raised some humour.

Yeah. What are the terms. Oh yeah, unconvincing and self-serving.

Cop on to yourself JRG. Just do.

Like

Pasionario - March 11, 2017

I think it means Lech Walesa is going to top the poll in Dublin Central next time around.

Like

dermot - March 11, 2017

A name can make or break a party. As in a commercial product, a lousy name (book title, movie title) can do the same. “RENUA” might (Might) have had a better outcome with a name that didn’t sound like a skin moisturiser, for example. There was nothing stopping themselves from calling themselves the ‘liberal’ party, but instead they played silly buggers.

Something like the Olympics can get away with a stupid logo (the infamous London logo which looked like Lisa Simpson performing a sex act on Bart, for example). That wasn’t going to stop anyone from watching the Olympics. A small left party on the threshold of existence doesn’t have the luxury of screwing up with names/logos. They’ve shot themselves in the foot before on this front (The ‘ULA’ sounded like a Northern Unionist paramilitary front, for example).

99% of the chat on this site is about substance; that doesn’t mean that image is unimportant as a topic; the people who post here are perfectly capable of talking about both, without turning into ‘pixel pushers’.

The fact that a left movement yanked its ‘revolutionary’ logo from a GETTY archive is poor effort, and leaves them open to ridicule.

Like

RosencrantzisDead - March 11, 2017

I agree, JRG. You are entirely right.

I think this discussion is better when broken down into discrete parts so as to avoid unfocussed debate.

Now, the first question I would like to pose is:

‘What sort of logo would best advance the left and communicate its values to the public?’

I look forward to hearing from everyone on this.

Like

12. Jim Monaghan - March 11, 2017

“The Left Alternative”. All others are imposters, I suppose.If they had left out the “The”.

Liked by 1 person

13. Jim Monaghan - March 11, 2017
14. makedoanmend - March 11, 2017

I really couldn’t give a shite about brands and brand names.

And I fail to see how this thread could raise a “hoo-ha”.

When any party (of any denomination) talks about branding, I just tend to think could I have a side of fries with that, and no I don’t want no fecking cheese on it.

Like

dermot - March 11, 2017

You may not give a shite, but the public does…so you are not the target audience of an image change. I could care less, but you’re dealing with an enemy (FF/G/LAB) that spends VAST amounts of money on image/manipulation in order to sell themselves to the innocent/naive.

You’re going to shrug, and abandon that field, and leave them to it? Or are you going to take a little time, and come up with a name/logo/slogan that RESONATES?

You can bang on to the public about the material dialectic until you’re blue in the face. They do not care they do not care they do not care.

You need to speak to the swathes of the public in language that they understand. Some of that is reasonably literate, and some of it is NOT LITERATE AT ALL, but emotional/symbolic.

The resistance to discussion of identity/imagery on this thread proves to me why the left is stuck on 5%, and absent change, is likely to stay there, forever.

Liked by 1 person

WorldbyStorm - March 11, 2017

I understand why people are averse to brands, and why the left even more so, but as you say dermot it’s key to political success. FG et al don’t spend that money for the good of their health, they do it to maintain their dominance and the left has to – at the the least – form some sort of means of combatting that, and part of that, fortunately or unfortunately, is going to involve visual imagery.

What is worth considering is how political identity has worked so effectively for both PBP and AAA – my personal opinion is that AAA’s visual identity is perhaps one of the strongest ever seen on the Irish left. The very clear yellow and black colour scheme, the simplicity of AAA, the directness of the message. And it has worked brilliantly. Three TDs in 2016. Of course it works because it links right back into work on the ground. True too for PBP (whose imagery has been ‘softer’ and less politically hard edged but whose very name is so direct). This has worked and worked well for both. One of the most striking aspects of this is how relatively inexpensive the ‘brands’ have been. But the clarity has been fantastic.

I’m agnostic on Solidarity as a brand – we’ll see how it works, I worry that a name/identity change may prove tricky. I think the individual TDs are safe enough – they’ve a strong profile, but I can’t help but be a bit concerned that muddying the identity at this point may not be the best approach in terms of growing the party (I’ve different criticisms of the logo etc but they’ve been aired already. It has its strengths but a few puzzling aspects to it). Time will tell. But dermot isis absolutely right – we have to critique and examine and understand just how important all this actually is – whether we like it or not.

Like

makedoanmand - March 11, 2017

Sorry, I still don’t give a shite.

Just can’t get all that worked up about.

But if one think politics is pictures, who am I to argue?

The vast amounts of money goes to whom? Cui bono?

Oh, and where’s the proof that pretty pictures cause voters to vote the way they do?

Is FF’s resurgence do to new, spiffy logo’ing?

And because one party starts spending big dosh and the others start to follow suit, fearing that there is some advantage, we’re supposed to take this as proof that image consultation as politics is where it’s at?

Ain’t really adverse to brands and their symbols. Just not turned on by them.

Like

makedoanmand - March 11, 2017

do to = due to

Like

WorldbyStorm - March 12, 2017

The thing is, and again I genuinely understand your scepticism and share it to an extent, there is an issue here. It’s not just whether you or I care, but others do. Nor is it that politics = pictures. Though it can. In the early days of the USSR working with a semi-literate population the Bolsheviks adopted the use of very straightforward photographic and text based imagery, not because people are stupid but because it was direct and understandable. And that – allied to constructivism – became part of the visual language of the 20th century and much wider afield. Modernism was all about that. Of course there is a very important issue re who benefits. But the left should – and I know from my own experience – does have design resources which are not tied into commercial or profit making agencies (say what one likes about imagery but take the SWP, some of the most immediate and arresting designs available. Militant too. WP in their day. SF a well.). And that should be encouraged by parties.

Nor is it about pretty pictures. But imagery does influence people. Take a basic example. Tony Gregory didn’t wear a tie. That immediately made him different from the rest of the candidates and TDs. It didn’t win him elections, that was down to work on the ground, but it assisted.

Of course an FF resurgence isn’t down to a logo. And there are examples, RENUA is the obvious one, where an over concentration on their visual imagery marked them out as idiots (the SDs were a lot more clever about their identity, the purple by the way is from Catherine Murphy’s own use of that as a the suffragette colours, they didn’t mention their logo etc just came out with a crisp look). But people aren’t visually stupid. They expect if someone is looking for their vote to look reasonably well. there’s a million no-mark candidates – look at the IEL of Alan’s and there’s examples aplenty, of people who run for election using black and white photocopied leaflets and posters. And they don’t make it because they don’t appear ‘serious’. That is simply perception but it is real enough to have a function (and thankfully so in the case of some of the Christian right parties).

Again, it’s not a simple emulation. I noted that the AAA identity was clear, distinct and effective. But not due to masses of money in terms of producing it or getting it printed but in terms of thinking through a direct communication. It’s about thinking smart.

I’ve canvassed enough to know that if I turned up at a doorstep with the photocopied piece of paper and the rubbish poster I might as well give up on the vote. That perception, that expectation, is crucial.

Like

makedoanmend - March 12, 2017

Yeah, of course people get caught up in all types of hype (including symbols), and advertising has been one of the biggest influences on human behaviour in a consumerist society without any doubt. (Adversiting assisting, again, in making that consumerist society.) No arguments on that score.

The golden arches are known the world over. The results are there for all to see. Obesity, shite diets and health costs.

And there is a growing cohort, and by far the largest segment of many voting populations, called those who no longer vote. I wonder how many have just been turned off by PR politics?

(As an aside, one of my capitalist ‘trading’ friends uses rebranding as an ‘indicator’. Says that often rebranding is a ‘tell’ that things aren’t going right with the business, so they fall back to the old rebranding and new, shiny logo bit to cover the cracks.)

(As an aside, aside, tyring to attribute PR factors to why anyone or party wins an election is at best a tenuous exercise.

The Raving, loony, monster party has been at the forefront of political advertising for decades.)

Like

WorldbyStorm - March 12, 2017

You see my sympathy with your points is such that I worry that the new identity for AAA is going to perhaps present a problem. Take the WP, one thing I think some in it became addicted to was change for its own sake, not change for a good reason, so SF became OSF became SFWP became WP, but then some wanted more ‘change’ and went for DL and ultimately wound up with no change in the LP. Sure some of those represented changes of ideological orientation but I suspect that might have been overstated a lot of the time. And the effect on voters most definitely. At its peak WP got 4-5% of the vote. And behind that dynamic is the idea that a shiny new ID will motivate people etc, but I don’t see it that way. The logo and ID is important because of the work, not instead of it. One has to do the work, get a ‘name’ build on the work, etc. The ‘name’ is only credible with the work behind it. It can’t substitute. Or put it another way, a Learjet for a TD only functions positively if it is backed up by work on the ground. The leaflet and ID isn’t in itself the work. It is necessary though to remind or inform of the work on the ground. Some in WP forgot that. I hope that doesn’t happen again.

Like

makedoanmend - March 12, 2017

Yep, when one begins to dig down into how PR and advertising work in the modern context of politics, the subject does take on a certain dynamic of its own.

[As an aside, aside, aside – one cannot divorce the use of capital in markets (someone having mentioned market share) as a blunt tool to make the PR/advertising seem like it’s working wonders. Corporate use of capital to buy large and eye-level shelf space in supermarkets comes to mind – crowding out the competition. A well know coffee franchiser often opens up multiple locations around independent coffee house to strangle trade. (“The aim of business (capital) is not to provide the best service but to provide the only service.” – Terry Prachett, Post Office)

Blairitism was all about market share and selling the party as vehicle for money to buy democracry, imo. And many other parties followed suit.

And then there’s the old Marxian chestnut of fetishism.]

Like

WorldbyStorm - March 12, 2017

All true re fetishism, the function of capitalism etc, but still – effective communication, effective political communication, still needs to be… well… effective. I’ve long held that the three primary identifiers on political materials are photo/name/party logo. it’s not even content because most people don’t read leaflets (posters are slightly different but again, photo/name/party – formation affiliation logo are key)If one is doing the actual work in communities then as long as that supplements it one has a chance. If one doesn’t do the work the flashiest design won’t help a bit, on the other hand the design has to look reasonably well. Not stellar, not prize winning, not necessarily corporate at all, just well, as if some effort has gone into it.

Like

15. CL - March 11, 2017

Without a logo to promote its brand image to the political consumer the left would not be differentiating its product from its competitors and would have difficulty in increasing its market share.

Liked by 1 person

16. CL - March 12, 2017

The :Sinn Fein logo plays a key role in their onward march, North and South.

Like

makedoanmend - March 12, 2017

Does it? How so? What are the mechanics of how this logo works to their advantage?

They made great strides during last week. Did they change anything logo-related that correlates to the change in voting patterns? I didn’t see anything.

Did the other parties get their logos wrong?

Like

CL - March 12, 2017

Exactly

Like

WorldbyStorm - March 12, 2017

Of course it’s not the logo as such which is merely a visual and physical manifestation of political processes – but it’s a brave person who – given all the evidence would think that flags and emblems play no part at all in politics, particularly in Northern Ireland.

Like

17. roddy - March 12, 2017

Rebranding certainly matters.A few years back the UUP merged with the Tories under the brand name UCUMF. Say it out loud to see how it accurately summed them up!

Like

18. Dr.. Nightdub - March 13, 2017

The whole point of logos or “brand visual identities” is to provide (a) recognition and (b) consistency. If AAA becomes “Solidarity”, or Opal Fruits become “Starburst”, or Marathon becomes “Snickers”, then everything that’s been built up to now goes out the window

Like

19. Jack Jameson - March 13, 2017

I wonder what would happen if there was a snap election before the new name/logo got bedded in in voters’ minds.

Like

20. irishelectionliterature - March 19, 2017

As an aside “Solidarity” was the name of the group that backed Nora Bennis in the 1994 European Elections.

Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: