My friend Simon Young asked me what I thought of the 2012 London Olympics’ logo. I have privately spoken to a few people about the controversial symbol since news of it broke, and I’m afraid I join the mob dissing it. I hope Simon won’t mind my quoting what I responded to him with.
There was some article in The New York Times [correction: it was the International Herald–Tribune, owned by the NYT] this week about how it succeeded in creating buzz, but I think that’s bollocks. Nine-eleven also created a lot of buzz.
No, this logo is awful. If you read what Sebastian Coe had to say at its announcement, you knew something was wrong without even seeing it. Wolff Olins may have been behind it, but there’s a lot wrong—from the concept, the way it was done to the way it was launched. Rumour has it that the man behind the logo was in hiding. You don’t do that if you truly stood by the BS that everyone was spouting, from Lord Coe to the IOC to Tony Blair.
Lord Coe’s statements took a leaf out of the designer’s wankspeak book and I was puzzled by who wrote them.
I don’t argue for conservatism for a logo that won't even be used in a big way till the event, but this hardly advances the game.
There are far better ways to spend £400,000. I really doubt the rigidity of the market research.
I know of no one at Medinge who thinks highly of this piece of trash, either.
On the plus side, I am glad it does not play with the Union Jack and be stuck with red, white and blue.
Note the bandying about of the word brand at the launch. I shudder when it is so misused.
If this logo were so inclusive of London or the Olympic spirit, there surely would not have been such a massive outcry. All good brands, I argue, must strike a chord. The logos need not look great, but they must have some connection to the public and the way they interpret, or are expected to interpret, them.
An inquiry has been launched today by Lord Coe over the launch, though I believe Wolff Olins sits pretty with the £400,000 fee despite The Times’ very odd headline in its online edition, ‘Coe may not pay for £400,00 logo’ (sic). I wonder if the old Grauniad proofreader is working for Murdochs now. Posted by Jack Yan, 11:04
You make a lot of sense. I do however ask, how many such expensive branding boo boos must wolf olins make before they aren't "Wolff Olins" anymore? Do you remember the half million pound Russia wide rebranding of MTS they did last May? the "simple as an egg" one?
Excellent point, Niti. I think Wally left at the right time—whatever WO is doing doesn’t have that same magic any more.
I expect Wolff Olins must be happy with the money for MTS, although Brand Instinct must be upset at doing all the work for MTS and Wolff Olins taking the credit for something they didn't create:Post a Comment
I read Beeline are Wolff Olins client and MTS can't be but Systema Telecom are:
Alex Shifrin must be an ex-employee of MTS to be so narrow minded!?
As ever people never wait and see what the actual visual expression will be... it's not just about a logo... it can be – but never should be. we will see. JA
# posted by Anonymous: 7/02/2007 07:24:00 PM
Links to this post:
NoteEntries from 2006 to the end of 2009 were done on the Blogger service. As of January 1, 2010, this blog has shifted to a Wordpress installation, with the latest posts here.
With Blogger ceasing to support FTP publishing on May 1, I have decided to turn these older pages in to an archive, so you will no longer be able to enter comments. However, you can comment on entries posted after January 1, 2010.
Individual JY&A and Medinge Group blogs
DonateIf you wish to help with my hosting costs, please feel free to donate.
Copyright ©200210 by Jack Yan & Associates. All rights reserved. Photograph of Jack Yan by Chelfyn Baxter.