London Olympics 2012 Logo worth £400,000?
Not to me.
Just one day after the logo for London Olympics 2012 was unveiled, more than 9000 people signed on a petition to have it removed. There were more than 50,000 signatures collected when the petition closed on 6 June 2007.
This London Olympics 2012 logo was designed by Wolff Ollins. The design brief called for an emblem that represented the four key ‘brand pillars’ of access, participation, stimulation and inspiration, culminating in the brand vision of ‘Everyone’s Games’. The approved logo is a composite of the number 2012 (the year the Games take place), the Olympic Rings and the word London. There are 4 official colour options available.
The official media release said: “The new emblem is dynamic, modern and flexible reflecting a brand savvy world where people, especially young people, no longer relate to static logos but respond to a dynamic brand that works with new technology and across traditional and new media networks.”
Well, these bold words did not reflect what some people felt:
Retry said: “Lord Coe, the guy who spoke at this auspicious event said “London 2012 is inspired by you and it’s for all of you.� The people of London are wondering WTF they did to deserve that comment … … [The logo] should not look like Lisa Simpson giving a blow job.”
Willyhonda, a BBC Sport’s fan said at it’s 606 site: “Is this supposed to be one of those picture puzzles that eventually makes sense after slowly refocussing your mind’s eye? It has gone beyond the acceptable limits of effective communication by trying to be too clever. It represents already-dated grafitti (even grafitti can be contemporary art) … … Worst of all, it’s been trademarked - who on earth would want to copy the thing?! “
Another fan, AnotherWestie, described it: “It looks like a logo designed for young people by old people who don’t understand young people.”
Devil’s Kitchen rants: “It doesn’t look like 2012 (which is apparently what it’s based on) and it doesn’t look professional: it does, however, look like a fucking disaster area, so it probably suits the Olympics rather well.”
Julie-Ann commented at BBC News: “Why do we always make ourselves a laughing stock? This logo has no style and says nothing about London - as a brand it is weak. Why can’t the organisers use some common sense for once, put their hands up and say ok, it’s been a disaster but we’re all adults - let’s change it”
The Organisers of the 2012 London Olympics were probably quite shocked at the branding backlash. This is what they said in defense: “It won’t be to be everybody’s taste immediately, but it’s a brand that we genuinely believe can be hard working… and reach out and engage young people, which is our challenge is over the next five years.”
According to Sebastian Coe, chairman of London’s 2012 organising committee: It is an invitation to take part and be involved. Personally, I did not find it “inviting” at all.
What do you have to say about this £400,000 (estimated USD797,289) logo? Like it? Hate it. Let’s talk.
Anyone who is interested for an indepth review of this logo should pop over to Creative Review.
Technorati Tags: London Olympics 2012 logo, logo design, corporate logo, branding
Check out these related posts:
Alternative London Olympics 2012 Logo & Past Olympics Logo
No Big Deal if Your Logo is Similar to Another?
How Much Should You Pay for a Logo Design
Why is Logo Design That Important
Or Get a Free Report on Successful Entrepreneurs
Free Report on Successful Entrepreneurs
Popularity: 19% [?]
Stumble it!
June 8th, 2007 at 12:28 am
I have no words to describe that logo. I work in an Ad Agency and I’ve seen my fair share of logos which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever but this one takes the cake! No identity for the host nation, no identity for the sporting event it caters to. Like most people would say, it’s a blooming disaster. London bridge is falling down perhaps?
June 8th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Viv
Once again your blog highlights the best and worst in the marketing and branding world. The logo has just recently been criticized for inducing epileptic fits in people. The colors are loud, brash and like most people mentioned, has no resemblance to London or England - be it culturally, or representing any physical landmark or historical significance.
I personally hate the design, if the report didn’t mention it forms the numbers ‘2012′ i would have never figured it out. It looks like a piece of origami gone wrong, as though someone fished it out from the wastepaper basket.
$400k? What a joke… reminds me of the Singapore G’ment wasting good $ to think of a better name for Marina Bay… only to realize that Marina Bay was the best name afterall!! Or another example of paying $ to think of a new name for the budget airlines terminal.. only to think of the grand, fantastic and immensely creative and original name of ‘The Budget Terminal’….
*puke*
June 10th, 2007 at 7:02 am
Nick - I like your analogy. London Bridge is certainly falling down with the Brits bombarding the authority to dethrone the logo.
Edmund - You are right. Until now, I’m still thinking if there is a better alternative to “The Budget Terminal”.
June 12th, 2007 at 8:51 am
The comment in article about the logo look like Lisa giving a blowjob really crack me up! :)
P/S: How about “Uniquely Singapore”? The taxpayer spends million to get a fuzzy, meaningless tag and slogan which often left me dumbfolded when my foreign friend ask me what is so “Unique” about Singapore? This is a typical “smoke out” job for big foreign “branding” agency and our ministries still smile when they are screwed!
June 18th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Hi Ken
Just like your washing machine client who hired you for one session of consultation and after that, no news. Thanks for sharing.