This is my first time posting on this forum, I realised this could be useful since this is an awesome design community.
I have a group project in which I have to design a symbol for a campaign.
Campaign chosen: Legalization of Cannabis
RATIONALE FOR SECOND SYMBOL:
The half leaf that is further derived from the original marijuana symbol as to be detached from the stigma, represents that there is another side to Cannabis - the medicinal side. And this is denoted by the simplified chemical compound of Cannabis on the other side of the half leaf.
RATIONALE FOR THIRD SYMBOL:
"our symbol to appear as though it is radiating, like rays of sunlight. This gives a sense of hope, paired with the molecule denoting science is here to help."
**Which one do you guys prefer? And thanks heaps for taking the team to read..**
- 3rd is to busy and confusing
- 1st is degraded by stigma associated with entrenched view of marijuana criminalisation
2 draws u in to value before questioning pre conceived judgement
2 strongly focuses on positives first
- if it was for my company i would ask u to rework the 2nd idea to bring the two symbols together to show unity, could confuse idea though
I see you've given us a rationale for the last two symbols, but not the first; yet it has some curious origami-like styling that I'd be interested to know more about. Why did you create the symbol in this fashion?
I'd also like to learn what audience this campaign is aimed at, and how you're addressing their interests and needs through that. I find it interesting that you're concerned about the stigma associated with illegal cannabis use, yet that stigma could be attached to the organisation name as much as it attaches to the image.
As for my feedback, I feel you could push the concept of the alternative use of cannabis further, so far the visual aspect of that is explained quite basically. I think you're on an interesting path using the chemical structure of the drug. I also wonder what would happen if you considered the people side of things? That's what's going to overcome stigmas after all.
1) The first one was an experiment by my group member.
2) The audience of this campaign is aimed at existing people for the legalization of medicinal cannabis, there will be **two phases**:
Inform the public that are for legalization the benefits of medical cannabis - from a little survey we did majority were for **however** that was based on general knowledge not in depth - this phase will help inform them so when they get into discussion about legalization - they have solid reasoning - also 84% trust comes from reccommendations that friends and family have made
Social mobilisation - empower the people to raise their voice, using the comparison tool, have two images, one of someone in pain and the other not with text saying something like "medicinal cannabis can help" or "would you want your grandma to suffer"
3) We tried to minimalize the stigma by choosing the word 'cannabis' and not 'marijuana' this isn't going to neutralize it but its a start
Ok - so if your audience is the general public who you say is generally for your position but under educated, how do you think you need to approach them?
I quite like where the second logo is heading, but my concern is that it's quite stable and conservative - it uses a more corporate visual language, which may not be the message you need to convey. You may want to go down this path if the organisation is setting itself up as a health advisor and advocate like the heart foundation (http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/Pages/default.aspx) but I still think it'd be worthwhile considering how you 'humanise' the logo.
Alternatively look at social campaigns (which I think is where your communication strategy really lies) like recognise (http://www.recognise.org.au/) and marriage equality (http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/) to see how they approach similar communication problems. Incidently I think the marriage equality logo is weak, but they're strengthening it visually and meaningfully by repeating the heart motif in their campaign imagery. Your first logo is probably most successful at this strategy, but if I saw it sight unseen I'd think it was a service provider, rather than an agent for legislative change.
I also got feedback from the lecturers - they said something along the lines of what you said **Cheli** - it looks like a government official logo, but it could be advantageous as this could build trust between the audience.
Our lecturer also was reminded of a swan like you said **Zack**