The new identity for the 2012 Olympic Games to be held in London, England has been released and I’ve posted it above. Unfortunately for the IOC, the $800,000 logo has not been met with much acclaim since its reveal. In fact, as ABC News reports, the criticism has been downright rabid. Here’s an excerpt from that story:
An online petition posted by Jonathan Ellis Monday has generated more than 28,000 electronic signatures from around the world, many complete with scathing commentary, including repeated “Rubbish!” calls.
The criticism ranged wide. Many called the expensive price tag a waste of money, claiming that a national competition would have been more appropriate than using an expensive professional agency. Others balked at the design because it failed to capture the British spirit, saying the design was a source of collective embarrassment rather than pride. Still others complained that the “abstract” attempt was too much like a “1980s hangover.”
I was reading a post on Thought Gadgets this morning about this, and Ben points out that many blogs and Web sites are having official contests to see if ordinary people can come up with something better. One of the more notable contests can be found HERE. Ben makes the point that this is a slippery slope because it really serves to devalue the work done by design + branding firms.
While I can’t argue that $800,000 is excessive for a logo design, the world has to have a better understanding of the work and process that goes into a design like this. It’s not simply a few clicks of the computer mouse and voila! It’s research, it’s brainstorming, it’s concept development, it’s design, it’s revisions, it’s production. It’s a whole team of designers working together to achieve a solution. It’s concept after concept, direction after direction, revision after revision until it’s just right.
I personally don’t mind the logo. To have tried to develop a logo that suits everyone everywhere would have been a nearly impossible exercise that would have resulted in a safe and generic solution. And don’t discount the importance of this word-of-mouth marketing for the event, still four long years away. Sometimes controversy is key!
Garret Ohm
http://www.orange-element.com
 |
Coming Soon! |
|
I agree that most people don’t realize the brand audit, team building, strategy that goes into the process. On the other hand, $800K is steep (though I’ve seen clients who paid more for less). I don’t personally care for the logo – think it’s hard to get a read on what it is (I had to look a few times) but that’s not important. What I do wonder is who is the target audience for the Olympics? If it’s hip, 20-somethings it might be right on. I, however, think the audience is quite a bit broader, older, and more conservative and wonder if it’s on track. Just my 2 cents.
The 2012 logo is actually not bad, or good, since all that is subjective. It just seems isolated.
In other words, I do think the UK Olympics logo missed an opportunity to tie in to the British “brand.” This logo could work in any country — and might have worked better in China, since it feels somewhat foreign and modern. The Olympics are such a draw to a nation’s character. Is it too much to wish that the UK had come up with something including Austin Powers? Now that’s a brand I could follow
My hope is that the logo is a springboard off of which this brand will really take shape over the next four years. I agree with Ben – seems abstract and isolated (especially as a standalone ‘logo’ in the traditional sense of definition). While I like the throw back to a palette that hits on the London punk scene, I’m not a big fan the mark itself. But, there may be an opportunity to move the mark in many different directions. I can only hope part of the cost was in presenting brand components that have yet to be revealed.
Who did the logo anyway?
Aaron – it was done by Wolff Olins : http://www.wolffolins.com/
The 2012 logo is not bad from purely a design perspective. It stands out and its flashy and eye-catching. However, it does not seem to be designed with a purpose, and for $800k, it should be designed with a purpose.
Agreeing again with Ben, there is no tie in with the UK, a strategy the Chinese executed wonderfully with their logo (http://prep4china.com/drupal/files/image/olympic_logo-beijing.jpg). What are the presumed simplest objectives of an Olympic logo? Appeal to a very broad target audience, and tie itself in with there the Olympics are being held– there is a lot of pride that goes hand in hand with hosting the Olympics. This design falls short of both.
As far as the comment on appealing to the hip generation and whether or not it’s tying into the London punk scene, the response is you can be hip without being so jarring, as well as designing something that does not take you 4 times to look at to realize that is says 2012.
For someone who loves design, loves the Olympics, and considers London my adopted home, the logo was a bit of a let down.