Ok. I’ll keep this short because it’s day two and I’m sure you are already tired of the new London 2012 Olympic logo scandal.
I picked up the general vibe of disapproval through the media a few hours before I saw the logo and couldn’t wait to form my own opinion on this “obscene waste of tax payers money”.
My initial reactions were “it’s not what I expected” and “it’s also very basic” – and for me, these two reactions are both positive ones.
I expected to see a flowing, freehand, prancing human form suspended over the word ‘London’ in an optimistic script font - like many of the European sporting events that have come before. Thankfully the logo is nothing like this. It’s simple, as all good logos should be, and must be seen in context to be properly appreciated. I’m truly relieved that the design has avoided the red, white and blue, British war-paint colourway, designed to intimidate non patriots. The Olympics is a no prejudice global gathering not a fight on our turf.
I understand the general public’s reaction to a cluster of geometric shapes baring a price tag of £400,000. However, consider the research and deliberation behind a complete and incredibly high-profile graphic identity for an international event, coordinated by an agency with the branding pedigree of Wolff Olins and the price seems quite reasonable to me.
In my opinion the new London 2012 Olympic logo is unique and distinguishable and the work behind it’s creation should not be underestimated. Like Kelly Holmes, Michael Johnson, Jonathan Edwards, Asafa Powell – true experts in their field make it all look so easy.
No doubt that the 2012 Olympics will be an historic and spectacular event. As for the logo, it’s appeal will grow - trust me.
12 × Reactions… Easy Money?
Subscribe to… Comments
Subscribe to comments for Easy Money?
Rich Rees
Fri 8th Jun 2007 at 16:15
I’ve spoken to a couple of people about the 2012 branding, and the general consensus was “It’s just crap”. Now, does that mean that each of these people has some higher understanding of what it takes to brand an event as prestigious as the Olympic Games, that they have some insider knowledge as to the brief to which Wolff Olins were being guided, or that the initial reveal simply took them by surprise?
I’m sure when the next Big Brother housemate gets evicted for being a bit naughty and everyone’s found something else to argue over, they’ll come back to the 2012 branding and it’ll feel just that little bit more familiar.
Matt Wilcox
Sun 10th Jun 2007 at 16:52
I don’t doubt that the logo satisfies the brief very well. The trouble is the brief was clearly produced via quango - and this is the sort of result you get when a committee tries to be everything to everyone. You end up with something no one likes, apart from the people sat in the meetings that already know what the logo is supposed to represent.
Joe Public don’t like it, and that’s an automatic fail. What’s been missed is that the logo design (any logo design) is judged by the public - not by the client. It’s all about the public’s perceptions, understandings, and reactions, not the clients. The public don’t understand, appreciate, or like this logo. The failure was at the goal setting stage - too many people involved aiming for their own ideas, and not that of the public.
Also, congratulations on the new site guys, it’s spanking lovely!
Tim Webley
Mon 11th Jun 2007 at 10:21
Hylo Matt!
Think my daughter is in the wrong nursery. I can clearly see from your gravatar that you are about the same age and she thinks quango is a fizzy orange drink with bubbles that tickle your nose.
Don’t you think that if you let the public loose on a decision like this you would be taking the ultimate ‘design by committee’ route to disaster?
I think the fact that Joe Public doesn’t like it is an automatic win! Lets face it, I hold the public totally responsible for Hear’Say, David Sneddon, Michelle Mcmanus and Jade Goode.
Sometimes Daddy knows best or Robyn would be in a class of 12 Spidermen, 14 Cinderellas and a Noddy.
Also, don’t forget, the Olympics is a global event and the rest of the world might love the ID.
P.S. Matt - your post was written like a true professional, thanks for taking the time to respond - I feel this discussion could run and run. Good to have you back, in mind if not in body.
Leigh Scott
Mon 11th Jun 2007 at 10:25
I don’t particularly like the logo, but that doesn’t mean I think it is bad. If it does the job well and is well executed then that’s good. The look and feel fit well with it’s intended use and how it will work in various mediums.
Something to also take into account with this ID is the amount of free publicity it has generated and how awareness of the pending Olympics has been raised. All good.
I suggest everyone looks at this logo as a ‘Marmite’ design. Some will love it some will hate it. As with anything creative, you will never please everybody all the time.
Matt Wilcox
Mon 11th Jun 2007 at 12:01
Hey guys, glad to see all is well with you, and cheers Tim :-)
Yeah - my gravatar pic may be a touch out of date. It’s from 1983 or there-abouts!
As for the public aspect, you may be misunderstanding me. They shouldn’t be let anywhere near the design itself, but the whole point of any logo or branding exercise is that it’s the public reaction that is vital. They are the audience. They may not be able to design, or appreciate details, or reasons why something visual works - but they know what they like and react on an instinctive level. They are the barometer of success.
A logo can satisfy any number of client thoughts and desires, but if the public don’t see it in the same way as the client, then the logo has failed. A logo is supposed to be a unique identifier, recognisable, individual, and to counjour up brand values.
This logo doesn’t vibe with the public. It doesn’t say anything to them apart from “oh, is that supposed to be 2012?”. It is, frankly, too bloody clever for its own good. The problem is not the design, the problem is with the goals the design satisfies. Too much of trying to be all things to all men, and nothing offensive. For my money, I’d have promoted the Britishness which is completely ignored in this design. Isn’t the point of the Olympic rotation of hosts that some unique flavour is imbibed into it? Isn’t it expected that the ‘experience’ will be different in different host nations?
I think this country is too caught up on excluding uniqueness because its seen as threatening community. What ought to be going on is the celebration of uniqueness within the context of community, not the exclusion of it to force community.
Trevor Morris
Tue 12th Jun 2007 at 11:12
When I first saw the London 2012 Olympic logo I absolutely hated it. It seemed my initial reaction was in-line with the rest of the UK population, and according to a BBC poll on the subject 78% of the population would give the logo the “wooden spoon”. I felt the chosen range of colours where too strong and the jagged design didn’t fit in to the perceived ‘Olympic logo’ convention.
however, after reading a few design-related articles and talking with other designers on the subject, I started to re-think initial gut reaction. The logo is completely different to anything previously considered as an Olympic logo – and I think that is a Good Thing™. If you look at some of the previous Olympic logo designs you’ll notice they’re all very similar — a sports-related stylistic flame, with the country and year in a script font underneath, followed by the Olympic rings in their original colours.
Many people think saying the logo will evolve is a ‘get-out clause’, but if you see the logo in context it looks a lot less confrontational. You have to remember that this brand has to last the next five years, we have only seen the tip of the potential of this brand. Already the team at Wolff Olins have released plans for the next stage branding, specifically with the controversial logo - sponsors and sports clubs can use imagery within the logo, while only maintaining the shape, rings and the word ‘London’.
At least one thing can be said about the launch — the majority of the public in the UK know and will be able to recognise the London 2012 Olympic logo, and this can only be a good thing for the Games. Wait a couple of months, and people will have forgotten about the initial outrage and will accept the marketing complain. Trust professionals, they can see the complete vision.
Tim Webley
Tue 12th Jun 2007 at 11:13
Err?
Well at least we agree that the general public don’t like it! - but then I don’t base my opinions on what the general public think.
Maybe I’m excited about Britain being the host nation for the 2012 Olympics and I want to back it all the way and if embracing the branding and running with it means I’m on my own. Cool. Like supporting my daughter at her school sports day - win or lose I just don’t care.
I still think that we haven’t seen the full story yet. I like the logo because it is unconventional. I like Britain when it’s unconventional. I like free thinkers.
Paul Lloyd
Sat 16th Jun 2007 at 04:21
Hey Guys,
I’m enjoying your commentary and watching the same debate here that I’m seeing amongst me and my friends over on my blog (thanks for the link too by the way!).
I won’t dwell on this any further (I think I captured most of my thoughts in my own post in the replies to it).
One thing that I do want to touch on though is Matt’s comments about how the design should be more overtly British. I have seen this in many peoples comments, and in those damn ‘suggested alternatives’ over on the BBC News website, and I’m actually glad we didn’t go in that direction.
What exactly would it say about our nation, that when given the chance to host an international event, we turn inwards, and self congratulate ourselves on how great it is to be us (probably with nationalistic stereotypes). That’s how I feel we would be perceived had that been the case. International events of this nature rarely rely so heavily on national imagery (although of course it is always there, but usually on a more subtle level.)
I actually think we have achieved British-ness in this logo on such a subtle level. We have shown innovation, braveness, and daring design, all hallmarks of Britain is and has always demonstrated.
I’m of the impression however, that many wouldn’t be happy unless the logo contained the Union Flag and many a London landmark, but I can’t tell you how glad I am to see that is not the case.
At least people are talking about design, and I tend to think that is a good thing, it’s just a shame the debate is being lead by those who don’t understand or appreciate design, and have their own populist agendas.
Jonathan Salem Baskin
Thu 5th Jul 2007 at 19:46
What if the entire sorry chain of events were part of a thoughtful strategy to engage with consumers…not in some generic, ‘awareness is everything’ Web 2.0 exercise in wasting our time, but a planned campaign with a direction and ultimate purpose (i.e. selling tickets, raising corporate money, driving viewers to the events)?
I’ve written that fantasy business case history. Were it only true…
Tim Webley
Fri 6th Jul 2007 at 16:00
Jonathan, your article ‘The Real Logo Story’ highlights some very interesting points.
Recently I heard someone say that “good design should be invisible.” Well if the brief is to integrate seamlessly, follow convention or to function ergonomically then I agree. If the brief is to get noticed or provoke a reaction then ‘bingo!’, the new Olympic logo wins again. Maybe the logo does stink, but then it wouldn’t take scientist to recognise the benefits of Dayglo doggy doo.
lyndsey
Wed 11th Jul 2007 at 17:05
thts rubbish £400.00 for tht they could of somthin better or spend less money on makin it
Tim Webley
Fri 13th Jul 2007 at 16:22
I hope you are sitting down when you read this Lyndsey. The logo is rumoured to have cost £400,000 - that’s four hundred thousand pounds!
Thanks for putting your point across, I can see from your website that we have a creative thinker in the making.
P.S. Turn your spell checker on :)
Reactions are now closed for this article!