Speak UpA Former Division of UnderConsideration
The Archives, August 2002 – April 2009
advertise @ underconsideration
---Click here for full archive list or browse below
  
London, How do I Hate Thee? Let me Count the Ways, 1, 2… 2012

Like Halley’s comet or the launch of new iPhone ads, it is a momentous occasion when you wake up to a buzzing design (and online) community eager to talk about a logo. The last sighting of something like this was four years ago, with UPS. How times have changed since then; now dozens of blogs are on it and hundreds of non-designers are intrigued. I even woke up to fifteen e-mails with the same subject line: Olympic logo of London 2012.

divider

London 2012 Unveiling
Tennis player Andy Murray (left) and Sebastian Coe.

London 2012 Unveiling
Introducing the Paralympic Games logo.

London 2012 Unveiling
Demonstrating that something will happen on your cell phone.

divider

This morning, the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, headed by Sebastian Coe (head of the London bid in 2005 and former Olympic athlete), unveiled the identity of their 2012 games at the Roundhouse center (nice logo, by the way). Designed by Wolff Olins at an expenditure of £400,000 (almost $800,000) the logo has been met with expected ambivalence, and, in some unavoidable cases, hatred — actually, so far, in 11,550 cases. A petition is already under way to either redesign the identity or go back to the bid logo. MetaFilter, a mob that you love to hate and hate to love, is questioning the expense. The news has also gotten BuzzFed. In a BBC vox pop, Londoners expressed their dissatisfaction, “No, I don’t like it. I don’t like pink color,” said a woman wearing a dark pink sweater. And, for a laugh, you can read this handy collection of blog quips gathered in an articled titled “The London 2012 logo: the blogosphere is angry”. So what’s the big deal?

London 2012 Logo

Part of the problem is that the logo comes with too much hyperbole, rhetoric, metaphors and inflationist meanings. A few choice clippings from the press release:

The powerful, modern emblem symbolises the dynamic Olympic spirit and its inspirational ability to reach out to people all over the world.

London 2012 will be Everyone’s Games, everyone’s 2012. This is the vision at the very heart of our brand. It will define the venues we build and the Games we hold and act as a reminder of our promise to use the Olympic spirit to inspire everyone and reach out to young people around the world.

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.

divider

And Wolff Olins was eager to add their own monumental spin on their own, unbearable web site:

Echoing London’s qualities of a modern, diverse and vibrant city, the London 2012 emblem is unconventionally bold, deliberately spirited and unexpectedly dissonant.

The emblem’s form is inclusive. It can talk to anyone. It has incredible flexibility, yet is consistent. Behind the emblem is a dynamic grid from which comes a distinct visual language. A palette of colours, lines and shapes that create energy, inspiration and interest across every application.

divider

Interestingly, Wolff Olins and the Committe have managed to find a way to deploy all these intentions, and more, unto their (I think) catchy promotional video, (which you can see here in its entirety):

London 2012 Video Still

London 2012 Video Still

London 2012 Video Still

London 2012 Video Still
The games will be everywhere. Even in your Post-its!

divider

London 2012 Video Still

London 2012 Video Still

London 2012 Video Still

London 2012 Video Still
And they will be for everyone!

divider

Clearly, both London’s Organising Committee and Wolff Olins are pleased. One praise that I actually found relevant, more so than the self-inflicted, was by International Olympic Committee President Jacque Rogge [bold emphasis mine]:

This is a truly innovative brand logo that graphically captures the essence of the London 2012 Olympic Games — namely to inspire young people around the world through sport and the Olympic values. Each edition of the Olympic Games brings its own flavour and touch to what is now well over a century of modern Olympic history; the brand launched today by London 2012 is, I believe, an early indication of the dynamism, modernity and inclusiveness with which London 2012 will leave its Olympic mark.

This is where I think the London 2012 identity succeeds. Whether you like it or hate it, the work is extremely unique and memorable. More so than any of the last Olympic Games [pop up] and I would even go as far as comparing it with the 1968 Mexico Olympic program in terms of a radical approach. What Wolf-Olins has been able to create is a visual language that can be implemented across all media without succumbing to boring repetition and, again, whether you like it or not, this is an extremely complicated thing to achieve. Much more to do it in an exciting way. Yes, slowly, I am throwing praise of my own to this identity. I really don’t “like” the basic logo, I feel it’s clunky and ugly (maybe sexy-ugly) and I still have no idea why that loose hyphen is there, smack in the center, but the way it is used and supported by its own unique language is highly rewarding for me.

London 2012 Video Still

London 2012 Video Still

London 2012 Video Still

London 2012 Video Still

London 2012 Video Still

London 2012 Video Still

London 2012 Video Still
Closing seconds of the promotional video, showcasing the range of executions of the identity.

divider

The influences (intentional or not) of the new identity are clear and evident. And timely. And fun.


Money for Nothing, Dire Straits, 1985.


MTV’s launch in 1981.

divider

Aren’t trends supposed to circle back around every 30 years? The 2010s will mark three decades since the 80s so Wolff Olins may even be ahead of the curve. The Committee has five years to build this brand, and, if Speak Up and Brand New are still around, I think this will be one of the most interesting case studies of brand building and improved perception through consistent and relentless execution. I believe, despite any ensuing boo’s, that this is some of the most innovative and daring identity work we have seen in this new millennium, and the lack of cheesy and imagination-impairing gradients gives me hope that identity work can still be resurrected on a larger scale. What I fear is that we will all see Halley’s comet first, in 2061, before we see any more risks in identity design.

Maintained through our ADV @ UnderConsideration Program
ENTRY DETAILS
ARCHIVE ID 3489 FILED UNDER Branding and Identity
PUBLISHED ON Jun.04.2007 BY Armin
WITH 326 COMMENTS
Comments
Andy’s comment is:

Personally, the only thing I see in this logo is quite accurately depicted in the graphic on the below link.

www.demomac.com

In all seriousness, anything attempting to be "street" or attempting to connect with youth in a condescending tone will always be rejected by its target purely because of the nature of its inception.

On Jun.04.2007 at 07:03 PM
Edrea Lita’s comment is:

In all seriousness, anything attempting to be "street" or attempting to connect with youth in a condescending tone will always be rejected by its target purely because of the nature of its inception.

I disagree with this. I don't see the olympic games identity as being condescending. I agree with Armin that the logo itself seems a bit clunky and (working with metaphor here) if it were an olympic athlete, say a figure skater, it would surely fail in the area of gracefullness. But the video really tells of the underlying vibrancy and energy that captures the attention of viewers and is the drive for many athletes.

Everything about it is memorable, but I think the one thing that seems the most disturbing, is the fact that is keeps many of the stylistic features (geometric shapes, neon colours, etc) of designs launched in the 1980s (like MTV) while not contributing enough to be unique. If someone showed me this logo (assuming I didn't know what 'london 2012' meant) I would probably think it was from 30 years ago. Perhaps when the brand is developed more, the brand will seem more up-to-date.

On Jun.04.2007 at 08:05 PM
Drew’s comment is:

I was actually more disappointed with the execution of the motiongraphics in the logo-reel-thing . . .

The logo's shapes lend itself to really dynamic animation but it seems a little TOO erratic for me . . .

On Jun.04.2007 at 08:08 PM
Andy’s comment is:

I think i agree with Armin here. My first thought upon seeing the identity was probably "what on earth is this thing?" but the supporting language that accompanies the mark helps to reinforce it's brandable qualities. The way it lends itself to time-based media is impressive despite it's over-all form at a stand-still.

Even though i understand it less than i have the other olympic logos in the past, i'm still impressed by what they managed to do across such a broad range. Everything from the motion, to the web, and what i assume will be signage, merchandising, and who knows what else.

On Jun.04.2007 at 08:17 PM
Bjorn’s comment is:

I shall begin by saying I love the new logo! There are so many times, that we, as designers wish for something that is outrageous and exciting and rude and garners attention. By the outcry/petitions/more outcry of the general public, dare we say this logo have not achieved that?
The range of applications is amazing, the logo is exciting, not boring like the China "seal", nor like the common Chicago "brushstroke" seen here.
As the committee has rightly put, this logo needs to be able to survive the 5 years before the actual games, and the barrage of the China 2008 Olympics media frenzy, to come out still looking fresh and exciting.
Of all the cities that are "would-be" hosts of the Olympics, only London have the balls to pull something like that off, and they have.

On Jun.04.2007 at 08:22 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:

A few weeks back the 'International Olympic Committee' (IOC) put the kibosh on Chicago's Olympic logo design thus making themselves an international design by committee.

For those who may have missed this here was a pull quote from an article about the nixed Chicago Olympic logo.

"The edict was included in IOC rules published Wednesday to govern the 2016 selection process. It states that candidate city logos “shall not contain the Olympic symbol, the Olympic motto, the Olympic flag, any other Olympic-related imagery [such as] flame, torch, medal, etc.”

Of course this then begs the question.

Would "Any other Olympic-related imagery" include figures of athletes? What does "etc." mean? Saying "Olympic-related" could mean anything. If so what the hell are they suppose to use for imagery?

London obviously followed this inane art direction and the result is a wet crumpet design solution.

On Jun.04.2007 at 08:39 PM
marian bantjes’s comment is:

Well I'm glad you came out in favour of it Armin, however tentatively, because I thought I was going to have to wrastle you over this one. I confess, on my first look at the logo I laughed out loud (thanks!), but at the same time appreciated it for its wackiness. It's pink (sometimes), it's blocky, it's got piles of attitude: both cute and freakish at the same time.

But that video is brilliant, and if they can pull this off it's a terrific system. I don't see it as an attempt at being "street" at all; I see it as being "other". It is decidedly flying in the face of all the swooshy, soft, representative logos out there. But the way it acts as a placeholder for "whatever" is what makes it. It's very Santa™, so I gotta love it for that.

Which is not to say I love it unconditionally. I'm uneasy about the shifted white shape underneath, and both "london" and the olympic rings look like they were plopped in as an afterthought, but as an argument, these details are uninteresting to me.

Lucky London.

On Jun.04.2007 at 08:40 PM
felix’s comment is:

A coked up Cyndi Lauper in drag called ... wants her gay logo back.

Well, I can't speak for Ogilvy's BIG (and neither can they, they aren't allowed to blog!) but the first thing that came to mind was an iteration of Ogilvy's NYC2012 that hasn't been seen outside that office; it also involved this jagged ribbon like swoosh. I'm sure they aren't happy with this accident.

The loose hyphen is not a hyphen- it's part of the numeral 2... other than that, excellent review Armin.

On Jun.04.2007 at 09:15 PM
richard’s comment is:

I am surprised as Wolff Olins is usually quite smart about their design. When I first saw this it reminded me of the PBS Kids show ZOOM, www.pbskids.org/zoom/

On Jun.04.2007 at 09:29 PM
m.kingsley’s comment is:

"and I still have no idea why that loose hyphen is there, smack in the center..."

Armin, it's part of the second "2" in "2012" as it pokes out from behind the zero.

Kudos to Wolff Olins and the unerring confidence of the London Organising Committee. If people feel so strongly about it, then you've done your job. And I often say that it takes a strong man to like pink.

On Jun.04.2007 at 09:29 PM
Flaherty’s comment is:

Hmmm, xtra Chunky. Certainly not your run of the mill logo. At first I was thinking it too complicated, maybe it's growing on me.
Same with the low tech vid technique, at first I thought it was cheap, second viewing it's more interesting for some reason.

I can understand people not liking it.

On Jun.04.2007 at 09:40 PM
Danny Tanner’s comment is:

This seems entirely style driven.

It's "meaning" feels entirely contrived and forced, but it's memorable.

I suppose if someone made a disco ball the olympic logo, or for that matter pooped on my living room floor, I would remember it too.

Memorable doesn't equal good.

On Jun.04.2007 at 09:52 PM
Clarence Yung’s comment is:

Style as rhetoric? It seems like the most interesting part of the logo is how different it is in comparison to a traditional Olympic identity or branding idea. The style seems a little too much of a riff on the 80's, overstyled if you will (jagged linearity AND fluorescent color -- seems too much of a conscious decision to use a manner and method similar to the designers of New Wave records in the 80's). Yet there is something very interesting, something radical about going so counter to the easy, almost corporatist identities of the past games. It's obvious that the identity serves as radical rhetoric, even while wrapped in miles of PR-speak. And it works to an extent -- the hatred, the commentary, it gets people talking about the games, even if they're not getting the overt message. Ultimately, one gets the sense that Coe and Co. have more tricks up their sleeves to liven up the traditionally-staid games.

As said by previous posters, it is interesting in terms of performativity (eye-catching, weird, almost panopticonic?), but I don't think that's what makes or breaks this identity. It's how style is used as overt rhetoric (which in and of itself is radical in a time when it seems that any style is OK).

On Jun.04.2007 at 10:00 PM
Prescott Perez-Fox’s comment is:

I feel like I'm caught in a episode of "3-2-1 Contact"

On Jun.04.2007 at 10:32 PM
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:


"Designed by Wolff Olins at an expenditure of £400,000 (almost $800,000) the logo has been met with expected ambivalence, and, in some unavoidable cases, hatred..."

This is precisely the type of loose comment that we criticize the business press for making. Was it $800,000 for the logo or $800,000 for the strategy, planning, presenting and refining the logo? Did it include the animation, the design system and standards? Depending on the answers it could move from being ludicrously overpriced to a real bargain.

"What I fear is that we will all see Halley’s comet first, in 2061, before we see any more risks in identity design."

In investing there is the classic risk and reward pendulum. Perhaps we should ask our clients to chose from a similar scale. Do clients and their audiences really want risk or do designers want to do risky design?

I recently reviewed over 6,000 logos as a member of a jury. Let me assure you designers are taking extraordinary risks with their clients and their businesses. They are risking clarity of concept, legibility and in many cases, common sense.

Personally I find the animation to be fascinating although the dive splash segment leads me to believe the designer thinks a cannonball would be an award winning dive. I think the animation would be even more effective if it concluded with a more refined and legible logo. Let's not forget the logo has to work in numerous still applications as well.

"The emblem’s form is inclusive. It can talk to anyone"

Given the numbers of people with differing languages, alphabets and writing systems that live in London and will attend from every part of the world, I find the lack of legibility troubling. Not only do I struggle with ZOR (or 2012) but I can barely read London at one inch on their official site.

Don't believe me, ask your mom what she sees in this logo.

On Jun.04.2007 at 10:33 PM
richard’s comment is:

I am surprised that this came from Wolff Olins, not as the chosen designers but for the results. Then again, perhaps i just am too common to recognize the genius, but from previous comments, it sounds like I am NOT alone.

First look it reminded me of the kids show ZOOM, www.pbskids.org/zoom/

On Jun.04.2007 at 10:35 PM
Edrea Lita’s comment is:

I don't mean to be crass, but a number of people I've talked to today pointed this out... doesn't the logo kind of look like a person kneeling into a guy's crotch? (the woman is on the right). Perhaps I'm just looking at it too hard.

On Jun.04.2007 at 10:42 PM
marian bantjes’s comment is:

I really don't think legibility matters here. If it was wayfinding, yes it would be a problem, but in this context* all people need is to recognize it, and they'll have no trouble doing that. 2012 is the most abstracted part and the least important: it's impossible for me to believe that anyone in the world would accidentally miss the London Olympics because they didn't realise they would be held in 2012. The shapes both look and act like a puzzle and give that aha moment when you see the numbers. And given the numbers of people with differing languages, alphabets and writing systems that live in London and will attend from every part of the world, I think this identity will serve them well in that they don't need to read it. With something as heavily promoted as the Olympics, in all honesty anything would work. You throw it at people long enough and hard enough and they'll recognize it and even buy the t-shirts, no matter what it looks like. The interesting part of this as an identity is how they'll be able to play with those shapes, and after 5 years probably any irregular triangular multicoloured graphic in London will come to signify the Olympics—which could also be a fun puzzle for savvy bootleg marketers there.

*Note to young designers: be aware, however, that when designing an identity for your local hair salon, or any business that won't be massively and relentlessy promoted as the Olympics, a design such as this could indeed be irresponsibly disasterous.

On Jun.04.2007 at 11:08 PM
marian bantjes’s comment is:

Edrea: Actually, I think it looks like Mother Theresa.

On Jun.04.2007 at 11:11 PM
joel’s comment is:

I know its terminally uninsightful, but Vanilla Ice and Run DMC are the last things I want to think about when I see the Olympics.

On Jun.04.2007 at 11:16 PM
Brendan’s comment is:

Quite possibly thee worst LOGO ever created for a major mainstream event.

On Jun.04.2007 at 11:24 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:

I am starting to think this design is in violation of the IOC own rules of design engagement?

"The edict was included in IOC rules published Wednesday to govern the 2016 selection process. It states that candidate city logos “shall not contain the Olympic symbol, the Olympic motto, the Olympic flag, any other Olympic-related imagery [such as] flame, torch, medal, etc.”

Wouldn't this 'shard' logo violate the "shall not contain the Olympic symbol" clause?

The more I look at this logo, the more it reminds me of those pre-continental drift maps where they try to fit all the land masses together....but with over-satured colors of course.

On Jun.04.2007 at 11:27 PM
Jay Neely’s comment is:

The best review of it I've seen so far is the reddit headline: London 2012 Olympics Logo resembles Lisa Simpson giving head.

On Jun.04.2007 at 11:47 PM
nic’s comment is:

It's antilogocentric!, ok, a day has passed and the logo is still hideous to me but, what is behind the campaign and sustaining the logo... seems to be, really, really, intelligent. This seems to be a hard-core deconstructivist campaign that is actually working (!)... in fact -Acting- and not merely -seeming- transgressive.
There's the -I believe- wrong impression that Design is an activity that revolves around -pretty[ness]- as a notion, as opposed to being the space-creating social practice that it, in fact is. Humpf!, so, an active and realistic expression of deconstructionist theory actually acting as a form of design and in fact developing and enhancing social space and open-ended meaning?; Not resting beat on a safe and detached canvas or lying dead as an intellectual manifesto?. You know, but instead actually performing it's pragmatic/programatic charms in front of our eyes??. That sounds really promising.

On Jun.05.2007 at 12:05 AM
Frank’s comment is:

I don't get this logo.I really don't get it.Admitted i didn't read the rethoric nonsense that "explains" the logo but it doesn't matter because a logo that *needs* that much of detailed explanation is a bad logo anyway.

I don't care if Wolff Olins made it or a 15 year old kid after school - this is a bad logo and anything paid above $80 for this crap is money burned.

Is my mum really supposed to look at this logo and have the slightest idea what it's for ?

Really - don't fool yourselves y'all; just because a star agency did it, it doesn't mean it *has* to be good.

In fact, it's awful.

On Jun.05.2007 at 12:05 AM
artMonster’s comment is:

Looks like a tangram, perhaps Tangerine Dream can do the music...

On Jun.05.2007 at 12:07 AM
Daniel’s comment is:

Ugh...

I suggest Banksy designs the logo! Actually, he'll probably do that all by himself and for free, if he hasn't already

On Jun.05.2007 at 12:12 AM
Rob’s comment is:

I certainly saw echoes of ZOOM, a PBS show that started in the 70s. So, if the goal is to relate the Olympics via this mark to the 12-16 set, the great they've got a good head start. And sure, I'll applaud the guts it took to put it out there but...

I still believe ledgibility does matter. And this mark has little. And even more so, I think it does nothing to promote the Olympic spirit. To quote brand guru Tony Spaeth, "it's pure attitude, designed to intrude and degrade." And to me, it borders on the antithesis of the Olympic spirit. And instead of talking about the Olympics, we and it seems a large part of the world, are discussing the merits of the logo.

So far, I feel there is a major element missing and that's an emotional connection. Having viewed the web site, the video and studied the logo for to many hours, I still get no emotion out of the whole visual presentation. The ribbons, mimicking the flow of the Thames, are neat but they don't sing. At least not yet.

Yes, we can applaud the gutsy move it took to put this out as the face of the London Olympics 2012. But to declare it a successful solution will take time and in the end, economic results.

On Jun.05.2007 at 12:27 AM
Su’s comment is:

Add me to the list of people who said, "What the hell is that thing?" on first view. I don't think I like it, but I also think it's going to be a bit like the VH-1 logo redesign. (And wasn't that a fun thread...) You haven't really seen it in proper use yet. It'll settle in and people will learn to accept it. Is that a good thing? Not for me to decide.


And instead of talking about the Olympics, we and it seems a large part of the world, are discussing the merits of the logo.

*sigh*
If a logo design gets unveiled and a designer makes a post at his design blog for a bunch of designers to comment on, exactly what else do you think is going to happen? Go discuss The Olympics In General someplace the Olympics are being discussed. If you look real hard, you might also find an economist crabbing about the expense, and some lonely person in their comments wanting to talk about what the logo looks like.

On Jun.05.2007 at 12:50 AM
Joe Moran’s comment is:

Off with their heads!

Pink ?!?

VR/

On Jun.05.2007 at 12:52 AM
Su’s comment is:

Oh, and Von Glitschka, the violation you cite I think only applies to applicants for the games. London has been awarded the location, and can now make use of the various symbols.

On Jun.05.2007 at 12:55 AM
Mark Notermann’s comment is:

I'll add a YES vote to the noise, for reasons well enough stated previously.

Von G— There is a big difference in rules governing candidate cities from host cities. That probably explains the discrepancies.

On Jun.05.2007 at 01:12 AM
thinsoldier’s comment is:

I have to disagree about it being more memorable than past logos.
http://www.underconsideration.com/speakup/archives/london2012_pastlogos.html

I clearly "remember" the Beijing Logo and it isn't even 2008 yet.

On Jun.05.2007 at 01:21 AM
Nerg’s comment is:

It's a mess, the ugliest thing I've seen in ages. We could have produced a wonderfully inspirational piece of artwork or some delight ful typeography. Instead we got this

http://nergalicious.wordpress.com/

On Jun.05.2007 at 01:59 AM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:

Mark & Su said "There is a big difference in rules governing candidate cities from host cities. That probably explains the discrepancies."

Gotcha. I read through the mind numbing IOC doc and it never said anything about that but you're probably right.

I just love how large branding agencies wrap layer upon layer of psycho-babble around poor design in order to sell it as 'Innovative'.

No really you'll accept the brand equity and be enlightened when you see it delivered in all it's animated glory zipping around Southampton or the London Bridge.

If the original AOL logo and the Colorform brand had a fling this would be their rebellious and ugly love child.

On Jun.05.2007 at 02:35 AM
Jeff Gill’s comment is:

My nine year-old son will love this, as I would have when I was nine. That's a good thing.

On Jun.05.2007 at 04:26 AM
Christian Palino’s comment is:

Great review Armin – and I have to admit that I had the same reaction. At first, I laughed when I saw it. Then the reflection upon its strengths and uniqueness worked its way in.

Given the many, many logos we see these days – for new products and services and redesigned products and services – most of them look like some other logo and/or have adopted the trendy styles of the moment. The 2012 olympic's logo has its own vision and its own, unique voice – more than we can say for almost every other new logo.

Regardless of aesthetic taste, whether you like the visual language or not, this olympic logo works extremely well (as seen in some of the iterations in video, etc) at creating a memorable, unique mark that sets itself apart from other olympic logos and other brand projects in general. I am in agreement that the legibility of 2012 is entirely irrelevant for the olympic logo – its not information that needs to be communicated in the logo mark as it is everpresent.

Well done. Its great to see design work getting through for the masses that doesn't have to make them all happy, warm and fuzzy because what they are looking at is familiar and uninventive.

On Jun.05.2007 at 04:28 AM
Mark Notermann’s comment is:

Von, I didn't see Su's post...sorry for the redundancy.
-----

Not as if there's any need to fuel the fire, but the audience has been invited to join in the branding festivities. If this sort of thing strikes a nerve for you, does it make a difference whether this is a competition or simply a gallery?

On Jun.05.2007 at 04:35 AM
Marcus’s comment is:

Aren’t trends supposed to circle back around every 30 years? The 2010s will mark three decades since the 80s so Wolff Olins may even be ahead of the curve.

It's because this theory of culture exists that it does become true. For almost a decade our media has been trying to force us back to 80's styles. Yes some of these examples of 80's bad taste that we were laughing at post 80's, are creaping back in to fashion because of the fickle world that fashion is. All because somebody has said "80's will be all the rage this year"... every year for the last 10 years!

Why go back to tacky 80's design that has for so long been laughed at and regarded as poor? It looked like that then because it was all that the wonderful new technology of the time was capable of!

On Jun.05.2007 at 04:41 AM
Mark Thomas’s comment is:

It's memorable because it's spectacular crap.

On Jun.05.2007 at 05:15 AM
Armin’s comment is:

> This is precisely the type of loose comment that we criticize the business press for making. Was it $800,000 for the logo or $800,000 for the strategy, planning, presenting and refining the logo

Jerry, you are absolutely right. My bad. In my head I did have it registered as $800,000 = Design fees + production + research + launch knick-knacks + web design + event. I missed to point that out.

And thanks to everyone for noting that the hyphen is part of the 2, I did realize that, it's just a little too broken to be part of that 2.

> And even more so, I think it does nothing to promote the Olympic spirit.

What is the Olympic spirit? Hope? Courage? Brotherhood? Excellence? I really have no idea. The Olympics are a big ass event that needs an audience. The audience is changing and so must the Olympics.

On Jun.05.2007 at 06:33 AM
Al Woods’s comment is:

Oh dear.

First impressions were I seriously hated the logo, it looks like a really crappy first attempt at graffiti. I used to do graffiti when i was way younger and our earlier attempts at pieces didn't look that far from this logo. Out of proportion, ugly, clumsy and uncool.

Admittedly, when i read this article I could see the reasons for the direction and the stills form the video looked pretty good. Then i watched the video and they messed that up too, apart from a few cool parts like the runners being chased at the beginning and the fragmented footprints. Its just too controlled in parts, it should be way more insane and explosive to capture the energy they are supposed to be aiming for.

I read a great comment about it looking like "a logo designed for young people, by old people, that don't understand young people". Too true.

Love flat colours, love the energy angle but the pay off with the logo just sucks.

There are so many great graffti artists that would have created a much better version of this logo and would have jumped at the chance for a commission. We all try to achieve a look with certain designs but something of this profile should have been left to the professionals.

On Jun.05.2007 at 06:51 AM
steve’s comment is:

Lisa Simpson giving head indeed. Here's a variant of the logo that makes it abundantly clear:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=530097549&size=o

On Jun.05.2007 at 07:21 AM
Nathan Philpot’s comment is:

I like it. It is something none of us expected.

On Jun.05.2007 at 09:04 AM
Jill Paulson’s comment is:

"The new emblem is dynamic, modern and flexible"...maybe so, but it's just plain ugly!!

On Jun.05.2007 at 09:15 AM
Tselentis’s comment is:

Eeeeek. Cue VH1's 'I love the 80s' theme!

On Jun.05.2007 at 09:24 AM
Unnikrishna Menon Damodaran’s comment is:

indeed pink is very appealing.

a casual pen tool (Adobe Illustrator) zig and zag
excercise of a beginner can make a logo.

why not?

may be this is going to be a trendsetter for the event logos.

let me see the brief, Wolff Olins.

On Jun.05.2007 at 09:29 AM
Nic’s comment is:

I'm totally for the campaign; I say that design is not there to make us feel better about life, or to provide the public [or the design community] with the cozy and reassuring feeling that aesthetic joy goes hand by hand with things 'making sense', neither is art. I'm curious though to see if the polemic here moves on, to the aesthetics of ""-bad-"" design. Academically this might look like an ok push for a post-structuralist mesh aimed at inciting socially significant meaning, but , If judged with the tools of graffiti, looking at it from a skater-philosophy view-point, comparing it to things by Jeff Koons, or Frank Gehry, Basquiat... even. [even more that those guys are now "celebrities"] in badness.
I think that THERE, this guy can be fried. I am too for Bansky's logo.

On Jun.05.2007 at 09:29 AM
Steve’s comment is:

Nothing to get overly excited about.

Any 5 year old given enough encouragement and few crayons could have come up with something similar, probably better.

In all honesty I don't know what was wrong with the logo used to win the event. It said everything.

I think you have spent far too much money on something that isn't going to be appreciated when it could have better been used elsewhere.

On Jun.05.2007 at 09:34 AM
AL’s comment is:

I like it, too. It's crazy, it's positive, it's bold and memorable. It's the 2012 logo :)

On Jun.05.2007 at 09:35 AM
Mark’s comment is:

What to say, what to say.

Well at first this logo was hideous to me, but now after seeing the possible influences that went into it, it's making more sense.

Certainly evokes the 80's (BTW I've think the song Money's For Nothin' would be a perfect soundtrack for this logos promotion it just fits.) a decade I've sort of lived in, I was born in 1987 late 80s I remember pretty well.

What comes across to me from this logo is like it or not it is innovative, it takes every logo cliché you've ever thought about the Olympics and logo design and throws them out the window.

Funny how this logo also evokes a decade which was also innovative in terms of music,fashion, and design. The 80's was a huge period of change everything old was out, new was in.

I find this actually refreshing for todays era which since the late 90's and the Millennium hasn't been really innovative since. Most of todays culture has been about the same old rap music, "bling, bling", techno, or some type of metal music that mainly involves people screaming on top of their lungs, Mtv and Vh1 have become a channel for reality shows that make zero sense at all, and kids are supposed to now be into adult fashion culture before they have any clue what being an adult really means. (aka Bratz, Boyz, and some other franchises similar to this)

So yeah, you may disagree with me but I think the designer should be given credit for at least taking a risk, and kudos for them for evoking a decade that at least made more sense and brought in new ideas.

However I this more as a promotional logo rather than a representational logo for the games, if it becomes the representational logo it might perhaps change the games image to be more accessible to everyone, rather than an a few exclusive people in a demographic.

On Jun.05.2007 at 09:40 AM
C-Lo’s comment is:

Very 1984. Looks like it can be used anywhere, but would you want to use it? I would, but not for the Olympics. Maybe for a retro concert or something, but def. not the olympics. It looks like I'm watching Max Headroom. Now the lines following the people in moderation was good. I liked that, but cut out 75% of the boops and blips sounds please. the runners were good, the diver had entirely too much going on. That was ruined for me.

Only after it was mentioned do I see the girl "slobbin the knob" as it were.

Overall, A D+ . Barely adequate in some circles, failing in others (most apparently)

On Jun.05.2007 at 09:43 AM
ThorNYC’s comment is:

"powerful, modern... dynamic... inspirational... dynamic, modern and flexible... dynamic... new... modern, diverse and vibrant... unconventionally bold, deliberately spirited and unexpectedly dissonant... inclusive... incredible flexibility, yet is consistent... dynamic... create[s] energy, inspiration and interest"

The last time I read language like that it was in The Emperor's New Clothes. Hey!

And in addition to being dynamic, it's ugly.

On Jun.05.2007 at 09:44 AM
Joe Schwartz’s comment is:

When this was brought to my attention by one of my students, I immediately made everyone stop, found the logo and flashed it up on everyone's computer. Asking what they thought, the immediate reaction was of disgust. Some of the students didn't see the "2012" right away, some were repelled by the use of color and some noticed the departure from an Olympic color scheme. After they heard how much was spent, laughter ensued. If my students are typical of the youth-oriented target audience that was sought, this did not pass the focus-group analysis.

Through my time at the NBA as Senior Art Director I know how much goes into the research, development and trademarking of symbols such as this. I disagree with some of the comments that the supporting media only serves to enhance this logo's value. If the symbol cannot stand on its own and accurately represent the games and the host, it wasn't worth the time, effort or certainly the money. Ten years of working on NBA All-Star Game logos with Tom O'Grady taught me that - it's Logos 101. After our departures in 2002, the change in approach that the NBA took became obvious in that they reverted back to the typical, stale logos that were prevalent before Tom took the reins in 1989.

While some may claim that the London 2012 logo is a visual challenge to the viewer and thus will spark interest and discussion, it does not seem to be a viable solution to the problem that was presented. The use of colorful TV spots, bleeding edge animation and the typical sale of Olympic products will only serve to mask the fact that this solution was not worth the $800,000 that was spent. It is the design world's equivalent to watching the movie "Jackass" - a good deal of money spent on something not worth spending money on.

On Jun.05.2007 at 09:47 AM
Darrel’s comment is:

Seems that too many graphic designers are doing the unspeakable: judging the logo out of context of the broader identity system and marketing campaign.

The logo, itself, it OK. Mechanically it has some issues. Aesthetically some folks will like it, other's not. But in the context of the campaign, it seems to work quite well.

I also think the hatred being spewed at it isn't really a bad thing. It shows that the logo has garnered attentions. A blander logo likely would have received little push back but also would have likely been a poorer solution.

On Jun.05.2007 at 09:57 AM
Mark’s comment is:

Even though I like the logo, I hate how it's animated in the brand video, it's nightmarish,freaky,a plainly unbearable to watch.

I had to scroll down several times because it was too garish and bright. bright colors and flashing too much is torturous to my eyes.

ouch ouch ouch.

NOT SUITABLE FOR ANYONE PRONE TO EPILEPTIC SEIZURES!!!!!!

looked like a bunch of computer glitches, they could possible tone down the colors and flashing a little bit more.

ech, ad sends the wrong message.

On Jun.05.2007 at 09:59 AM
Frank’s comment is:

I believe the "hyphen" represents old London, what's often called "The Square Mile" that's right at the heart of the city.

What most people think of as London is officially several cities, notably London and Westminster, and I'm not sure, but the other numbers may represent those other districts as the square represents the Square Mile.

On Jun.05.2007 at 10:00 AM
Darrel’s comment is:

"It is the design world's equivalent to watching the movie "Jackass" - a good deal of money spent on something not worth spending money on."

A rather poor analogy given the success of the Jackass franchise.

On Jun.05.2007 at 10:00 AM
diane witman’s comment is:

Al Woods: I agree with your entire post!

The logo at first glance literally made me gasp! I'm sure there are plenty of good reasons that they took this route, but what about the every day person who doesn't give a crap about why something was designed? The general public is going to be completely confused by this choice and left feeling even more disinterested in the Olympics.

I think this logo will be laughed at, possibly be embraced by those who loved legwarmers, endless clouds of Aqua Net hairspray, and MTV. Trends, trends, trends.

I give Wolff an A for effort but he as alienated the general public. And has he or his team even thought about the demographic who actually watch the Olympic games? I'm in my 20's and the Olympics are not in my top 5 list of things to watch. Usually it's people sitting around in elder care establishments or left on tv's at restaurants.

I just don't think this was a great direction. Good luck to them, I hope they can pull it all together and build something amazing and maybe even nab some viewers.

On Jun.05.2007 at 10:00 AM
agrayspace’s comment is:

By popular design standards of the day, formally and conceptually this is a disaster. Though it just may confirm a suspicion I have had for a while.

A brand is all about execution, repetition and experience. A stinky moldy cheese that has no right to call itself gourmet food can have a postive brand image if its supported by enough user experiences in which its shortcomings are exploited to make it distinctive and memorable.

I think Armin is right. This just may be the most compelling brand building experiment we have seen in a long time.

On Jun.05.2007 at 10:18 AM
Nic’s comment is:

This is to complement Diane Witman's comment. They have a program to expose the "logo problem". On their website they have something like a -wordit- open for whoever to mess with the idea of the logo. Also it says that there will be a campaign to look for the logo on whatever streets or something. It seems that they are precisely looking hard, for that very young audience, those for whom this would be the first Olympics. Plus, and there's where I begin to object with their paternalistic approach, it is stated that the logo is not finished and that it will change. They are presenting this as -the brand of the people in that cheesy post-marxist English style. ... Yuk! to that.
ummm... Where's Pesky's comment?

On Jun.05.2007 at 10:26 AM
Don Whelan’s comment is:

What a minefield with this one! Like most, I despised and derided the new logo at first sight. As a logo, an aesthetic expression, it's a joke. Undeniably ugly. Utter garbage. But the video does explain it, and makes clear the clever vision and plans of the agency and of Sebastian Coe.

The possibilities a logo and a treatment like this presents for the overall branding of an event are astonishing... It is the culmination of the road down which Atlanta's Iconologic has been tirelessly shepherding the IOC for over a decade. (I am speaking mainly of the essence of the video, and to my knowledge, Iconologic has not been involved in London's design execution.) In the sense of the visual feast that the Olympics have steadily become since Los Angeles, and especially since the Games of the 1990s, London -- if this new branding experiment goes forward -- will put to shame all previous efforts. The Look of the Games will be everywhere and on everything, and this mark (the video, more so) will set forth an endlessly interchangeable and flexible palette of color and shape, adaptable to just about anything imaginable. In terms of the mechanics of brand extension to multiple surfaces and "screens," it is a triumph of design. The mark we see today is obviously not a final, concrete symbol. The branding of an Olympics is thorough and multifaceted, disciplined in its omnipresence. The Look evolves and proliferates over the seven years from the awarding of the Games to the Opening Ceremony, and the mark itself becomes merely a primary character in an ensemble cast.

If you haven't been to an Olympic Games, I can assure you that being there is one of the most incredible and overwhelming visual and sensory experiences possible without serious chemical alteration. There is an unmistakable sense of being at an enormous, momentous event, one that the whole world is watching. Part of this is the excitement that comes with knowing where you are, the crowds surging around you, the languages, the buzz. But the way a city is dressed up for the event, with art and graphics - The Look - is fantastic in its scope and dynamism. Here are some (fairly poor) recent examples of environmental design at Olympic Games, starting with Iconologic's first involvement, in Atlanta. (If anyone can contribute earlier examples, especially from L.A., it would certainly add to the conversation.) 1996 | 1998 | 2000 | 2002 | 2004 | 2006 Every surface seems to be part of the event, especially at the venues, but throughout the city as well. It's quite thrilling, and it has been expertly executed and, moreover, appropriate to the ideals of the Movement, to this point.

As Marian suggested, the text legibility of the new London mark itself is irrelevant to the event, and probably to the promotion of the event as well. Jerry, I agree that "London" is absurdly small. But I also think that all anyone has to do is see the type once, and they will forever know the shapes and colors as London 2012. It's unmistakable, just as the concentric lines of Mexico '68 are (brilliant correlation, Armin).

It may very well appeal to the younger set: "punk kids", living in the crazy visual overload of snowboarding and graffiti. To a degree, this is spot-on for the purpose: the Olympics are a celebration of the Youth of the World and the future promise they represent, and if kids aren't interested in the Games, then we'll just be cheering on yesterday's athletes as they go gray. As every Olympiad closes, the IOC President declares: "I call upon the youth of the world to come together in City, Country, in four years time..."

But... Is this ugly, jagged, aggressive, violent visual direction right for what the Olympic Games are and are supposed to be? Is a graffiti aesthetic an appropriate symbol for our best aspirations as humans? Is this really where we want our global society to go? Jagged shards of color soaring through the sky, like so much shrapnel? There's no grace or beauty to it. Just video games, action-packed, quick-cut explosions of kinetic energy, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," to borrow from a particular well-known Englishman. Where is the poise of the gymnast, the strategy of the 10,000 meters, the patient dance before the release of the fencer's lunge? All we see here is the landing of the shot put -- pure force, no balanced spin before the throw. Tell me, Wolff Olins, where we find the hope of the athlete's family for his dreams to come true? That feeling we all get in the pit of our stomach as we cheer on a swimmer and watch improbable victories occur?

This is the Olympics as pure MTV-style entertainment (it's clearly a deliberate aesthetic descendant of MTV), with no greater meaning, no striving for anything more. The designers and the organizing committee wanted something that would leap well beyond the realm of anything that's been done for a Games before, and, by gum, they've gotten it. The problem is they may just have jumped off a cliff with it, guns blazing all the way down.

On Jun.05.2007 at 10:27 AM
Jon H’s comment is:

There's a lot of discussion about the London 2012 logo being ugly. There seems to be an assumption that it should be beautiful, or elegant, just because it's a high profile logo. If being 'ugly' is a conscious design choice then there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't love the 2012 logo but I admire what has been done with the brand and I understand why the logo looks the way it does.

The logo is loud, brash and ugly because London is loud, brash and ugly. It would have been easy to create a brand filled with the stereotypes of tourist London but the designers have created something that feels closer to the real London. The London of Brick Lane, Smithfield and Brixton.

The 2012 Olympics are London's. They're not England's or Britain's or the UK's. Wolff Olins have created a brand (and by brand I mean the visual system, tone of voice and concept, not just the logo) that embodies the noise, brashness and energy of London. It's two fingers up to the dry corporate design we've seen at recent Olympics.

They've also create a brand which is considered so it works well on-screen and in motion. It will adapt and change over time and the way it works with corporate sponsors is innovative (this can be seen in the Lloyds TSB sponsorship advert that ran in this mornings papers). All these things are positive steps forward.

The London 2012 logo has balls. In an age of safe, all inclusive corporate design, that can only be a good thing.

On Jun.05.2007 at 10:31 AM
Jared’s comment is:

Memorable? So is September 11th. It is not an accomplishment to create an identity that is memorable when that lasting impact is accomplished by a horrendous visual assault.

But the telling sign of this identity's failure is all the hullabaloo surrounding it. Promotional videos and inflated prose about how vibrant and exciting it is smack of The Emperor's New Clothes.

I'm not buying it.

On Jun.05.2007 at 10:36 AM
Don Whelan’s comment is:

In the interest of accuracy, I need to add that Iconologic did not design any of the previous Games' marks, but in their advisory role ("brand consultants") with the IOC they have influence over the greater graphic execution of Olympic Games - the Look of the Games - hence my attribution of the visual trend to them.

On Jun.05.2007 at 10:49 AM
Nic’s comment is:

About Don's final paragraph and the lingering questions about the lost Apollonian synchronized virtues of the Olympic ideals. What is the purpose of participating in a totally post-hierarchical forum like this, made of mostly non orchestrated threads, to make the point about hierarchy and orchestrated linear achievement? I don't like this myself [either] but, we are becoming mass! without this phenomenon open-source, wikipedia, my-space and you-tube wouldn't exist and function. We are headed there, and the agency in charge seems to know that.

On Jun.05.2007 at 10:54 AM
Jürgen Siebert’s comment is:

Another »rare positive view« from Germany:
http://www.fontblog.de/london-2012-will-doch-nur-spielen

On Jun.05.2007 at 11:09 AM
Don Whelan’s comment is:

Nic: I agree with you in that the overall campaign is probably right for the times, robust, and actually pretty fascinating in its potential ... but I'm not convinced by the aesthetic, and neither are many English, it seems. I just wonder if there was another way to go about it. Jon H also makes a good point about brashness and London, and while it's very important to convey a locality's characteristics in an event like this, the undertaking does not necessarily come out rosy on that basis alone. Witness Atlanta's legacy. Sub-par mark, lovely graphics, but torpedoed in history by the aesthetics of things largely outside ACOG's control (street vendors, a bomb, etc.).

Still: London's mark doesn't say much on its own other than "I'm in your face," which is great for Ultimate Fighting but maybe no so great for the modern Olympic Games.

On Jun.05.2007 at 11:10 AM
Jake’s comment is:

This really just looks like some kind of 80's American "rock 'n roll" Trapper-Keeper or something you would glimpse in the opening credits of Saved By The Bell...

It's definitely better as a single color, but way to jagged for me.

On Jun.05.2007 at 11:11 AM
Al Woods’s comment is:

I think one major thing we can see here is individuals opinions changing slightly, the more we look into it and discuss it, the more the 2012 direction seems to make sense.

Take part of Don's comment: '...video games, action-packed, quick-cut explosions of kinetic energy, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...'

This is actually what makes the now interesting, this is what youth wants. Quicker, harder, faster, brighter...no time to think too hard about it, quick fix disposable pick up and play lifestyles. We look at it this way and the IDEA is perfect.

Conversely, no matter how much we discuss it and over analyse the reasons and the boardroom bullshit that makes the money men blind to what is in front of them...the simple fact is, purely from a 'does it actually look good' stand point, the logo just looks shit.

Going back to the pitch logo with the bland London text and the Olympic ribbons flowing through them, this could have been developed further wih some success i reckon. If you've seen the BMW crazy flowing lights ad on tv you can imagine these ribbons being created from light, swirling and flowing through the city in ways that project the movements of the different Olympic events. Obviously this would have cost a fortune but would have been way more appealing to the greater audience and have a feeling of quality to it.

Everyone digs a cool lightshow.

On Jun.05.2007 at 11:24 AM
Leo’s comment is:

Horrendous. Typifies the hipper-than-thou race over the cliff of absurdity that has thoroughly infected every aspect of art and design. The more obscure, inaccessible, ugly, and off-putting any piece or image, the more the self-perpetuating art insiders can smugly congratulate themselves on their exclusive, inward-looking cult and scorn ordinary people who simply want something nice to look at. The incredibly tiresome and dreary ritual paeans to the all-pervasive cult of diversity (with not the slightest reference to the rich history and culture of the great city of London or of the great English people), as well as to the older cults of pointless freneticism and youth-worship, are predictable. Sad a city and people are so ill-served and ill-represented. In a way, however, it does show its time and place - think of London's recent "art" exhibits such as the one consisting of the empty room with a light going off and on, or of the pile of garbage meant to be seen as "art" but inadvertently carted away by a janitor possessed of unfashionable common sense.

On Jun.05.2007 at 12:14 PM
Sheepstealer’s comment is:

A logo should be a signpost that leads to a brand. So what is the “Brand” of The Olympics?

Hard work, world unity, precision, grace, excellence, achievement, energy, competition, sportsmanship.

Well, at least the logo has energy.

But here's what's going to happen. It's going to wind up connected to videos, shopping bags, tshirts, motion graphics, medals, those little bio-videos that show us the hardships of the athletes' younger lives. Then, by association it will gain ALL of the attributes of The Olympic Spirit.

Sure, she's a dog at first glance, but once you get to know her personality, you won't be able to help but fall in love with her.

On Jun.05.2007 at 12:27 PM
Leanne Johnson’s comment is:

It's far too dated already. Everyone and their dog are jumping on the '1980s are back in fashion!' bandwagon here in the UK and it's reached saturation point already. In 5 years time, this logo will not be trendy, and cool and new (not that it is already) so they've missed the boat on that one.

But my biggest gripe with it is - it says nothing about Britain. Nothing about sports. It's too reliant on this 'dynamic' trend and nothing else. Take away its elements and there is no clue it is for the Olympics, for sports, or for London. It almost looks like they've copied the animated parts from Queen's 'It's a Kind of Magic' video.

(and re: the cost - people need to know just how much a proper branding costs, and stop moaning about how 'your nephew does the same for £100'. They don't)

On Jun.05.2007 at 12:37 PM
Coudal’s comment is:

Here's what we're thinking about this issue at Coudal Partners.

On Jun.05.2007 at 12:39 PM
marian bantjes’s comment is:

I am stunned that anyone claiming to know an iota about design would think that the development of a logo involves drawing a shape and asking for $800,000. If you think [the fee] = [1 visual representation] get thee back to school.

I am equally stunned that anyone would think that some shapes are worth more than other shapes. As though, if this logo had some swoops or swirls it would be OK. Tell it to the square or the circle.

I'm unconvinced of the notion that the logo should or even can embody the "spirit" of the games in some "uplifting" way. Or that it could convey all of the various sports involved. I think we've seen enough human figures with arms uplifted.

As for the criticism that it is "the 80s" ... PUHLEEEZ, does this mean that designers are forever locked out of using hard edged shapes and bright colours for fear of looking like "the 80s"? That's a vast set of iconography you just whiped off the visual table for a completely idiotic reason.

What this logo represents to me is a system of action. It has asymmetrical shapes which, while static, seem to move (bullshit blowjob graphics aside; you can find the smut in anything if you look for it). But more importantly, as perfectly evidenced in the video, the shapes will transform and change and create a look for the games that will be immediately recognizable.

What the $800,000 buys is this energetic system, and the thought and trial and error and late nights that went into coming up with a system. The system is the most important thing for something of this size with this much publicity and the thousans of different types of surfaces and uses it needs to accomodate.

If this were just a logo and their plan was to slap it on everything in sight, the job would only be 1/10th done. But it's not: it's a flexible system of shapes which stand out, have energy and vibrancy, and coalesce into a unique, identifiable logo.

What more do you want for less than a mil?

On Jun.05.2007 at 12:48 PM
Doug B’s comment is:

As of Tuesday 6/5 at 1pm EST USA, there are already 25,500 signatures on an online petition to change the logo, after only one day, here.

note: I am not going to click on the shameless Coudal link above.

On Jun.05.2007 at 12:49 PM
Coudal’s comment is:

How is pointing to a parallel continuation of the discussion shameless Doug? It's not as if we designed the logo, we just dig it.

On Jun.05.2007 at 12:57 PM
marian bantjes’s comment is:

Follow Coudal's link. Read every word.

On Jun.05.2007 at 12:58 PM
Kraeg’s comment is:

Andy wrote:
I think i agree with Armin here. My first thought upon seeing the identity was probably "what on earth is this thing?" but the supporting language that accompanies the mark helps to reinforce it's brandable qualities. The way it lends itself to time-based media is impressive despite it's over-all form at a stand-still.

Unfortunately Andy, your first thought is probably similar to what most people will experience. However, unlike you, they won't have the accompanying justification to explain it. A logo doesn't work if it has to be described.

Whether it translates well to other medium or not, first and foremost, it is an iconic representation that should resonate with both the product and the audience. Judging by the reactions, it accomplishes neither.

On Jun.05.2007 at 01:17 PM
Doug B’s comment is:

How is pointing to a parallel continuation of the discussion shameless Doug? It's not as if we designed the logo, we just dig it.

Sorry, I just assumed that the 3rd-party web advertising on your page (link) to was a 'revenue stream' for you...

On Jun.05.2007 at 01:18 PM
jack’s comment is:

I concur (you should always read coudal)

and on matters of olympic logos at least it's got kahunas-isn't the result of some endless soul destroying focus groups and I think it says a lot about London.

It says London doesn't care what you think. It's gonna make the olympics fit the image of the city, not the other way round.

The more everyone slags it off the strong it becomes.

On Jun.05.2007 at 01:22 PM
Coudal’s comment is:

No problem Doug. For the record, the third-party web advertising on our page is a 'revenue stream' for us.

On Jun.05.2007 at 01:22 PM
Edrea Lita’s comment is:

I had to scroll down several times because it was too garish and bright. bright colors and flashing too much is torturous to my eyes.

ouch ouch ouch.

NOT SUITABLE FOR ANYONE PRONE TO EPILEPTIC SEIZURES!!!!!!

Isn't that funny how new-looking things can do that to you? (Eg. Bodoni's sparkling type, and bright white polished paper... or the work done at the Bauhaus–a very large departure to what was seen at the time). There are two kinds of visual shock (Good and bad). This logo, along with its identity has sparked something good. Maybe 25 500 people have signed a petition, but that's a very small group of people compared to the entire world, or the people that have seen the logo at least.

Doug B: Why not read the link? A debate requires both an open mouth and an open ear.

On Jun.05.2007 at 01:32 PM
Edrea Lita’s comment is:

Doug B: My apologies, the site only added the bottom few comments after I had already posted.

On Jun.05.2007 at 01:35 PM
Doug B’s comment is:

No sweat, Edrea.

"Blog" means never having to say you're sorry.

(trademark)

On Jun.05.2007 at 01:39 PM
Nic’s comment is:

LOL B

On Jun.05.2007 at 01:41 PM
Travis Tom’s comment is:

Not really liking this logo effort--didn't even see it was 2012 in it until I read about this. I was looking for a some kind of shape making a figure sublimally. Why even attempt to do 2012 if it is unnoticeable to over 50% or more of your audience? This was poorly crafted--it could lose the square dash in the middle. The 2s could be more similar in shape angles to simplify it further.

I am usually jazzed about the Olympic logo, pictograms and overall branding system. I think this falls short of distinguishing the host city. This isn't supposed to be a 'Nike' brand. Maybe the IOC should come up with reinventing a universal brand of the rings geared toward youth and let the 'Host City' logo be what it should be--honoring the city, culture and the people who live there. Do you think there is enough pressure to get this rethought out? Maybe there should be a petition to ban the London 2012 games because of the logo--lol. If anything...the tee shirts should be cheap--printed only in one color.

Is their idea paying homage to neu wave music? If they stick with this new wave 80s retro thing...imagine the opening ceremonies. They've probably lined up The Clash, Ramones, Sex Pistols, Adam Ant, Billy Idol and other retro bands and performers. Madonna? I attended a speaking event held at the University of Georgia back in the early 90s --the talk was about designing the MTV logo and how it was meant to change and morph into different objects, shapes and colors meant for television. That just seems really old now.

On Jun.05.2007 at 02:12 PM
ed mckim’s comment is:

you know, i thought this was going to be a negative review given the title. i was about to jump in and say, hang on, there's a lot of neat things going on, not only did a lot of you beat me to it, however.

I definitely like it more than
their old one.

I think it's very effective and brave

On Jun.05.2007 at 02:14 PM
ed mckim’s comment is:

most importantly, i enjoy this part the most

http://www.london2012.com/joinin/create/

the creativity of open sourcing design and incorporating some of the ideas of the 1984 olympic games in LA, where it was a very loose brand for everyone is pleasantly contemporary given all of our open source options of 2007: many of us watch TiVo (somewhat open source), many of us are reading this in Firefox, amongst many many other options.

I like this very much, especially for the reason that ever since the early 90's when "Satan reigned supreme," and the modernist reaction that ensued when inevitably, the template gothic thing finally got annoying, I am glad to see something that has finally done something decidedly neither modern nor trashy and soiled, nor painfully inbetween (which has been the case since the late 90's.)

On Jun.05.2007 at 02:25 PM
Mark’s comment is:

I disagree with the notion that if people hate a logo so much then it's required that they "must and should like it", because it creates a stir.

Um,no there is no requirement that people must be liking something that they think is not in their taste.

You shouldn't like something if you are really really hating it, it doesn't make sense.

Is it fair to show you things you are really really disgusted to, and say "you must like it, like it, you should be attracted to it, like it,like it,like it, you hate it then you must like it!"

No?


Why? you wouldn't like that would you?

Kind of rude huh?

Point is, let people have their own opinions about design, and if they don't like it, fine thats okay it's their taste, if they do,thats fine also,once again it's their taste.

We agree to disagree.

If I don't like to watch a video that unbearable to watch, then I don't want to watch it, so I won't.

It's not in my taste.

You shouldn't be required to make me to like it, you shouldn't make me have your type of taste, since I'm not interested.

people are different they shouldn't have the same tastes.

People don't like to have others aesthetic tastes pushed on them.

it's just a fact.

No, I'm not "closed minded" either, I'm open to ideas and styles, but theres a point where I just have to say "oh, give me a break, this is ridiculousness".

This is one of those times, demonstrated in my reaction to the ad.

odd animation, wrong music, cheesy sounds, flashy graphics IMO it's just bad.

It's not helpful that probably most people are going to turn away from the ad after seeing a few seconds of it.

On Jun.05.2007 at 02:40 PM
Mark’s comment is:

I disagree with the notion that if people hate a logo so much then it's required that they "must and should like it", because it creates a stir.

Um,no there is no requirement that people must be liking something that they think is not in their taste.

You shouldn't like something if you are really really hating it, it doesn't make sense.

Is it fair to show you things you are really really disgusted to, and say "you must like it, like it, you should be attracted to it, like it,like it,like it, you hate it then you must like it!"

No?


Why? you wouldn't like that would you?

Kind of rude huh?

Point is, let people have their own opinions about design, and if they don't like it, fine thats okay it's their taste, if they do,thats fine also,once again it's their taste.

We agree to disagree.

If I don't like to watch a video that unbearable to watch, then I don't want to watch it, so I won't.

It's not in my taste.

You shouldn't be required to make me to like it, you shouldn't make me have your type of taste, since I'm not interested.

people are different they shouldn't have the same tastes.

People don't like to have others aesthetic tastes pushed on them.

it's just a fact.

No, I'm not "closed minded" either, I'm open to ideas and styles, but theres a point where I just have to say "oh, give me a break, this is ridiculous".

This is one of those times, demonstrated in my reaction to the ad.

odd animation, wrong music, cheesy sounds, flashy graphics IMO it's just bad.

It's not helpful that probably most people are going to turn away from the ad after seeing a few seconds of it.

On Jun.05.2007 at 02:41 PM
Clifford Boobyer’s comment is:

Olins have broken rule number one. Make a logo look good.

On Jun.05.2007 at 02:53 PM
Sonia’s comment is:

And the animated video DOES cause epileptic seizures!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/6724245.stm

On Jun.05.2007 at 02:55 PM
Flick’s comment is:

Thanks for providing the screenshots of the video. I'm very glad I didn't watch the actual video itself, because even looking at the pictures now made me blink several times, and no, I do not suffer from epilepsy at all.

The logo is a disaster, and undermines the authority of the Committee.

On Jun.05.2007 at 03:04 PM
Dave Werner’s comment is:

From a future digitally remastered release of Children of Men:

On Jun.05.2007 at 03:05 PM
Nic’s comment is:

That sweater looks cool with the logo on it... I'm not kidding, thanks Dave.
[yes I have extreme poor taste and belong to the lower classes regarding all things style]

On Jun.05.2007 at 03:16 PM
Mark’s comment is:

oh,dear

on a shirt, it doesn't that great...

More like a branded T shirt.

green and orange?

why those colors?

On Jun.05.2007 at 03:18 PM
Jenny’s comment is:

Well, at least the logo has energy.

But here's what's going to happen. It's going to wind up connected to videos, shopping bags, tshirts, motion graphics, medals, those little bio-videos that show us the hardships of the athletes' younger lives. Then, by association it will gain ALL of the attributes of The Olympic Spirit.

Like a lot of people, I didn't like this when I first saw it; I thought about posting but I didn't. But I kept thinking about it today, and the more I thought about it, the more it grew on me.

I love how it works as a system. I love that its brash and crazy and risk-taking and young. And maybe its those qualities - which are often just as much a part of the Olympics as good sportmanship and acheivement - that speaks to my own favorite Olympic "moments..." The Jamaican bobsled team (I was a kid and I loved them that year and cried when they crashed), the first time snowboarding came to the Olympics... And I do think as time goes on it will take on the other, time-honored qualities of The Olympic Spirit.

On Jun.05.2007 at 04:04 PM
Eugenia’s comment is:

no need to fret over those who are trying to convince you to like this eyesore, by 2012 they'll all be hating it too.

On Jun.05.2007 at 04:15 PM
Armin’s comment is:

From Coudal's link (which is welcome, btw):

> It's English. The two names that come to mind when we hear "british design" are two of our favorite designers of all time: Neville Brody and Peter Saville.

I would add Jonathan Barnbrook to that list. I immediately did a Google search for JB and London 2012 after seeing the lovely custom typeface that the system is using. It's an amalgam of Scala italic, Triplex italic and some hard ass attitude, plus perfectly rounded o's that stand out (and emulate the rings, of course), that would seem to be the perverse work of Mr. Barnbrook. All this is praise of course.

> bullshit blowjob graphics aside; you can find the smut in anything if you look for it

Thank you for pointing that out Marian. It's been driving me crazy. All those references are a reflection of how superflous, uninformed and childish some "criticisms" of this logo have been and how plausible it is to discount at least 75% of it as pure drivel.

On Jun.05.2007 at 04:21 PM
debbie millman’s comment is:

--$800K for an identity with the proposed level of extension is indeed a bargain

--$800K for a public relations initiative with the current level of exposure, feedback and newsworthiness is a major, major coup

--$800K for a design that gets 100 comments on Speak Up in less than 24 hours is fascinating, fortuitous and fun

--$800K for a logo that is so dreadfully mis-shapen that I can barely look at it (let alone read it) is a shame

On Jun.05.2007 at 04:27 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:

They should have had Neville Brody design it. It would have actually looked good.

Olins has created past wankers so this is just another par for the course in his 'Platform' approach for branding.

On Jun.05.2007 at 04:32 PM
meech’s comment is:

At least it has universal appeal -- everyone seem to hate it equally.

On Jun.05.2007 at 04:54 PM
Keith’s comment is:

it's shit.

On Jun.05.2007 at 05:04 PM
ed mckim’s comment is:

> bullshit blowjob graphics aside; you can find the smut in anything if you look for it

Thank you for pointing that out Marian. It's been driving me crazy. All those references are a reflection of how superflous, uninformed and childish some "criticisms" of this logo have been and how plausible it is to discount at least 75% of it as pure drivel.

I agree with Marian that this is an incredible system, which will more than likely turn out a lot more interesting and stimulating when assimilated into the games and it's systems. It's going to be bold, dynamic, and (what the games have lacked recently) COLORFUL!

Again, I would like to present that this will be one of the most universal and flexible systems which will be not only interactive for users making the experience more personal, but it will be able to truly adapt to the games more than the games adapting to it.

On Jun.05.2007 at 05:15 PM
Daren Guillory’s comment is:

In the advertising/media world, any publicity is good publicity; but sometimes ugly is just ugly...no matter how rooted in opinion. My personal opinion is that beauty needs no social nor theoretical justification; if the logo was beautiful, there would be no need for defending it.

I think it is a very aggressive take on an logo project that is a lose-lose situation...it's a world-wide audience. God knows you can't please everyone. It kinda reminds me of Def Leppard and their British flag deconstruction...that and a mix of Eddie Van Halen's "Frankstrat" guitar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstrat

On Jun.05.2007 at 05:19 PM
Sir Lloyd Baltimore’s comment is:

Looks like a Miles Newlyn Design to me.

He frequently work with Wolf Olins.

On Jun.05.2007 at 05:27 PM
Exigent’s comment is:

I agree with Keith.

I could excrete a better logo after a full liter of cranberry juice.

Seriously though... high profile designers trying to be "street" end up looking like assholes. This is an abomination! I looked more like a tweeked out "R" and has nothing to do with the olympics in my mind. Nothing about it looks athletic, nor graceful nor energetic. It looks like our london friends just pissed away 800K and nothing more.

Pip Pip Cherrio!

On Jun.05.2007 at 05:27 PM
matrose’s comment is:

uhm... its so... new rave... which was a bad idea from the beginning on...

but well... mabye the author's right and it's going to be looked at as revolutionary and fresh as mexico or munich 30 years after...

but still... hm... 400.000 pounds? that bought quite some cocaine

On Jun.05.2007 at 05:33 PM
art chantry’s comment is:

it's laughable. but, then so have all the "olympics logos" been laughable since they gave up restricting the use of anything adjunct to the olympic rings design. the rings logo is a perfect logo. yet, here we are the hubris of bad design (aka - "good taste" and "hip factor") crashing into the rings design again and trying to improve upon it. sadly, the best anybody can do its to decorate around the rings logo and that's about all this frankenstein of a logo can do. the result is just bad decoration - not even real 'design' actually. it's a decorative framework for the 'real' logo - the rings.

when are we as an "art form" going to realize that a good design needs to be left alone? when was the last time any modern designer has really improved upon an old classic, anyway (and fedex doesn't count)?

On Jun.05.2007 at 05:41 PM
Jason L.’s comment is:

Some Questions:

1. Will this actually be memorable? And if so – for the right reasons? Generally speaking, I don't remember a single logo from any Olympics besides the rings themselves. I remember the atheltes, specific events, records, performances and the cities they were held in. Not so much the logo. I hope it isn't solely remembered as that pink thing.

2. Is it actually energetic, or is it posing? Actually, I think the logo has more energy than the promo video. I was a little suprised at the positive feedback to the motion work. I'll chalk it up to personal taste, but it felt a little flat to me, and I hope they can do a better job building the energy than that.

3. Why do we care how much it cost?

4. Other than energy, is this thing relevant to the event in any way? Coudal actually pulled out the answer that was in the back of my brain. It says London not only in word but in its design. Coudal can do a better job referencing this idea than I ever will. I do wonder if that's enough, if others will get that vibe. It seems you'd have to be estute in some pretty esoteric stuff to get in on that.

All-in-all I'm inclined to want to like it. I'm pretty sure that's not the same as liking it, but what the hell do I know?

On Jun.05.2007 at 05:54 PM
Leslie Engle’s comment is:

I hate this logo, c'mon there are so many other talented design agencies out there, especially in London, the Olympic Committee got screwed over here, this is to be something great that happens, and this logo makes me cringe at the thought of it being plastered all over London, and the rest of the world, I'd say go to the zoo get a monkey, and get him to draw it, for free, it would be better, since your $ is all spent on shit!

On Jun.05.2007 at 06:05 PM
RussD!’s comment is:

So here are some things for all you to consider.
First I'm 19. So I think I can be that "young person" that Wolff Olins and London are chasing after. Second, check out iconologic's work on Torino's 2006 Winter Olympics branding. There is a cover story in Comm Arts (Jan/Feb 2006), and I feel that they were more successful in a lot of ways that the London logo fails. Their look is in no way stale that say Athens' or China's was, but they don't rely on ripping off the 80s in a desperate attempt to get young people. The design has an Adobe CS2 feel to them, but those are nice enough, and I think worthy of emulation, and a good indicator of design in the 2000s(?) [You know what I mean...the first decade of the new millenium]
Torino 2006
They're successful, because they're fresh and contemporary, and they serve a function. Also they don't ostracize like the logos past (and present) have. Both young and old can get into this. Check out the work, and see for yourself.

Here's the thing. The 80s are coming back in the fashion of young people. The slip-on van's with no socks is making a comeback, Jordan's new shoes look more and more like the older ones from the 80s, you go into Urban Outfitters and half the girls in their catalog look like the baby of Madonna (circa "Like a Prayer") with a under-fed hipster (circa right now), even sports apparel, kids love the throwback jerseys and older looking styles. However, even with all the throwing back and recycling of styles, what this logo lacks is the refernece to today. Yes, you could say that the type they chose is very contemporary, but still it's contemporary in the postmodern sense (the 80s again). The logo is a glorified MTV ad from '84, and I don't want my Olympics 2012, to be that.
The 80s are coming back in a sense, but they're not more so. You don't see kids rocking out on keyboard guitars with monster hair and spandex. There is no new wave, no hair metal, no funky funk, dorky dork, marky mark hip hop, and no michael jackson (making songs at least). This logo, if it were human, would probably be griping about the economic troubles that the Reagan administration was causing, waiting for the Cold War to end, and watching Breakfast Club while playing with a Rubix cube.

This logo is out of touch. Think back to my madonna doing it with a hipster analogy. There is no skinny hipster in this brand. There is nothing that says "new millennium", no reference to today, and no reference to my generation, which is who they're trying to reach.

The logo is something you'd see in a sophomore design class designed by a kid who is really into The Buggles, Frankie Goes to Hollywood, Madonna, and riding fixed gear bikes to dance parties with his friends where they talk about how bad cigarettes are the latest Hall & Oates record they found at the thrift store (where he bought his girl pants). It's not worth the time or money.

Now if you're going to compare it to just Olympic logos, then it's a God-send, but relative to the whole visual design landscape, and it's overstated goal of reaching young people, it's a failure. It's a poseur, and while poseurs are usually trying something new for them, they're usually doing an injustice to the things they are trying to emulate. This poorly done MTV logo needs to check in with MTV2, and maybe they'll find some sort of success. Kudos to the boldness, but shame on those farts at Wolff Olin's for thinking that appealing to a niche market is good design. This logo will appeal to a very small amount of people, and with what the Olympics are, and even London's claim that this is everyone's Olympics, this logo does not have enough appeal and is definitely not everyone's logo.

PS. I own a fixed gear, and have worn girl pants.

On Jun.05.2007 at 06:12 PM
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:

I'm enjoying the commentary but I'm curious about all of the references to the pink logo.

Does anyone remember what the M in CYMK stands for?

On my 23" Mac screen this is a magenta logo. This logo has enough aspects to criticize without calling it pink, not that there's anything wrong with pink.

On Jun.05.2007 at 06:22 PM
Bjorn Freeund’s comment is:

The video does a decent job of making a case for the branding identity and trying to redeem the imagery, but the logo itself does have a slapdash quality reminiscent of London's controversial sons of the 70's. Maybe there's enough of a payoff to convince the Sex Pistols to play at the opening ceremonies?

Never Mind the Bollocks Here's the London 2012 Logo

On Jun.05.2007 at 06:23 PM
Rick Curran’s comment is:

I really dislike the 80's feel of it, and the 70's / 80's video art feel of the motion graphics. It is an interesting aesthetic that would look good used in a certain context, unfortunately I don't think the Olympics is that context.

On Jun.05.2007 at 06:32 PM
Armin’s comment is:

This is the kind of reference I'm lovin'... And I dread not remembering it myself (having watched the show in my younger years... Yes, sue me). Seen on Creative Review.

On Jun.05.2007 at 07:12 PM
rdas7’s comment is:

That such an amount of money was spent on such a weak design sums up everything that's wrong with the London ad agency industry. The hyperbolic ad copy cements this:

new emblem is dynamic, modern and flexible reflecting a brand savvy

bollox.

The onus falls on the client (the olympic committee) for this one, as the designers quite clearly spent £399,990 of their money partying like rock stars and in the morning woke up and scribbled something on a napkin.

When I first saw the logo, I assumed that they had held some sort of school competition for children where the winner's design would become the logo.

When I later learned that actual money had been spent on it, I laughed.

On Jun.05.2007 at 07:14 PM
Pierre’s comment is:

To everyone concerned about cost, alot more was done with the money than just to pay one artist with an idea. Teams are involved in producing the logo across different platforms and the designs have to be filtered through different testing groups who all get paid, so don't act as if your idea of marketing is much more cost efficient.

Also, the negative comments towards it I've witnessed have been quite immature or unsubstantiated.

I'm betting that these are the same people who similarly mock modern art because "a monkey could do it" or "a child could do it."

On Jun.05.2007 at 08:01 PM
Marco’s comment is:

It's amusing how high profile agency A (Coudal) is defending the work of high profile agency B (Wolff Olins). Lots of nice words but let's look at the basics.

The Olympic games were historically intended as an event for 'the people'. And guess what? 'The people' absolutely HATE this branding effort.

Ergo, mission failed. Completely. It's one of those things that only those who 'know this stuff' appreciate. Unfortunately that doesn't do it for the rest of the world, no matter how many paragraphs of nice words are being written about it on agency A's website.

I hate this logo. But even if I'd love it I'd consider it a failure because of the simple fact that the ones for whom it was made (the general audience) think it's crap. Hard to deny isn't it?

On Jun.05.2007 at 08:21 PM
Andrew Pollak’s comment is:

AMEN MARCO

On Jun.05.2007 at 08:24 PM
Yeeesh’s comment is:

Pierre, please... immature or unsubstantiated?
Your comment that those opposed to this logo are "the same people who similarly mock modern art because "a monkey could do it" or "a child could do it" is absolutely ridiculous... we all know a child and/or a monkey could produce a better logo this.
I for one know about this stuff. I am an educated artist and award winning graphic designer. And the fact is, the logo - as a visual - is pure shite. The rhetoric written to substantiate it, however, is pure gold.

On Jun.05.2007 at 08:33 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:

Arm:

Ingenious uploading this Editorial on Speak Up.

I'd love to hear what TAN has to say.
Since he refuses to join us on Brand New for Identity Discussions. Damn Speak Up Elitism!!!!

Chantry Great hearing from YA!!!!

I Respectfully disagree all of the Olympic Identities were laughable.

Robert Miles Runyan,1984 Stars in Motion was a Milestone Identity for the Los Angeles Olympic Games.

Spawned a whole generation of imitators until this day.

Jerry The King Kuyper 1996 Atlanta Olympic Game Identity was a Milestone.

Felix Developed and Designed a Great New York 2012 Host City Identity.

We can Agree some of the others are not Aesthetic Milestones.

RussD!

You're only 19, allow me to School ya.

I'm over 50.

In 1996, Iconologic was named Copeland Hirthler, Brad Copeland being the Founding Principle.

Long Story Short, Copeland Hirthler, (Iconologic) was given the task to Design the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta.

Unfortunately Copeland Hirthler, (Iconologic) couldn't get beyond their initial Design Ideation of a PROSAIC five pointed star when the IOC needed to see alternative Identity Design Solutions.

Because of this Identity Design Mental Block by Copeland Hirthler. Worldwide Identity Consultancy Landor was retained to Design the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta.

Jerry The King Kuyper headed the Landor Identity Team that created the Identity for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta.

When Landor was called in to replace Copeland Hirthler, (Iconologic) Principals of Copeland Hirthler cried Foul. Their limited perspicacity allowed them to believe a Local Design Firm should've Designed the Identity. Albeit compete with a Worldwide Identity Consultancy.

This is well documented in an Edition of CommArts or Print circa 1996 or 1997.

Lesson Learned,How do get to Carnegie Hall???!!!!

PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE!!!!!!!

DM

The Hostile Takeover of Corporate Identity

On Jun.05.2007 at 09:21 PM
ed mckim’s comment is:

i still think that in the light of a couple of things, that this conversation is slightly off target

1) this isn't a corporate identity. it shouldn't be critiqued as one. it's part of a system. i'm actually going to use art chantry's argument (...it's laughable. but, then so have all the "olympics logos" been laughable since they gave up restricting the use of anything adjunct to the olympic rings design. the rings logo is a perfect logo....) to reinforce the point that everyone is critiquing this on perhaps the wrong pretenses. it seems that the letters 2-0-1-2 are just extensions of the overall environment - an admittedly london one - and as such, the alleged "logo" is more of an application of the system.

2. the intent of this logo to "not be something to go on a polo for the next year" but rather "something that's got to live for the next five years."

oh, let me cite those two All Things Considered, Today .

On Jun.05.2007 at 09:33 PM
Prescott Perez-Fox’s comment is:

You know, it reminds quite a lot of the logo and stylings of Big Brother, one of the most popular shows in the UK.

They update the art and graphics every season, but it always remains constant in it's over-the-top injection of visual stimuli. Then again, it's a lot less serious than the olympics.

Any Brits wanna check it on how the new logo (and especially that little animated video thing) reflects the stuff on telly.

On Jun.05.2007 at 10:13 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:

ed mckim:

"this isn't a corporate identity, it shouldn't be critiqued as one".

It is a Visual Identity and yes it is part of a system.

ed, you're playing with Semantics. Corporate Identities represent Corporations and smaller businesses.

Visual Identities serve the same purpose.
They represent Non Corporate establishments such as Government, Organizations, Events, etc.

Visual Identities like Corporate Identities are a Mnemonic Device that instantly triggers Recognition and Remembrance, as well, Good and Bad Experiences and Associations with a Brand.

This is an Identifier ed. This Visual Identity is the MOST visual aspect of any Olympic Games. Whether a Logo or Logotype it is the International Olympic Committee Visual Statement to the World of who and what the London 2012 Olympic Games are all about.

The most important element of any Brand or Identity Program is the Symbol.

The Visual Identity is composed of all planned and unplanned verbal and visual communication that emanate from the Organizational Body and leave an impression on the observer.


DM

The Hostile Takeover of Corporate Identity

On Jun.05.2007 at 10:19 PM
richard’s comment is:

When I first saw it I flahsed back to my childhood and a PBS Show called ZOOM! Check out their logo at www.pbskids.org/zoom

On Jun.05.2007 at 10:41 PM
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:

Enough disparaging comments on children and animals.

Let's remember what a master had to say on the topic...

Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once we grow up.

Pablo Picasso

And check out this site to see if you can paint better than an animal...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=459901&in_page_id=1770

On Jun.05.2007 at 10:53 PM
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:

Zoom indeed.

One big difference, I can read Zoom immediately.

Unlike 2012 with its two 2s, Zoom tossed us a bone by making the two Os the same.

On Jun.05.2007 at 10:58 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:

RussD!

Whatever reason my text was garbled when I posted. This is what I meant to say in reference to my ending statement about Copeland Hirthler.

Lesson Learned, Copeland Hirthler, (Iconologic) learned from their Mistakes. Throughout the years since 1996 they continued to bid on Olympic Games and Host City Identity Projects. Their perseverance and hard work paid off. They learned a invaluable lesson from Landor. They got better and stronger with more exposure to Olympic Identity Design Projects.

Ole saying, How do get to Carnegie Hall???!!!!

PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE!!!!!!!

DM

The Hostile Takeover of Corporate Identity

On Jun.05.2007 at 11:01 PM
Michelle French’s comment is:

My first thought was my Grandmother's voice saying "Why does God think I need to live through this twice in one lifetime?"

I've read through the commentary all day with amusement.

But Design Maven, you have stepped on my turf now.

Copeland Design, which became Copeland Hirthler (now Iconologic), was the design team who LANDED the Olympics for Atlanta. Their work for the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games (ACOG) broke ground for bid packages.

The A-star logo, by Kathy Roberts, then at Copeland, was universally popular. The Landor logo was NOT. Sorry Jerry, don't know you, but your logo was eviscerated almost as much as this one. And I could have written a better spin for its presentation. Landor was hired by the ACOG marketing director, whose previous résumé consisted primarily of Junior League volunteer work who heard someone say that Landor did good logos. No one else got a chance to present.

Designed in San Francisco. Had nothing to do with the sense of place that we know as Atlanta.

Brad Copeland said nothing. He responded with grace, reserve and CLASS.

The rest of us in Atlanta, however, had a lot to say. As a community as a whole, we were dissed. And the one we believed was most screwed, was Brad, who had long been a hero. The insult brought the design community together and was the foundation for the very strong AIGA chapter here.

The day of the unveiling of the Landor Logo, the entire Atlanta Design community was invited to a big party "to have our noses rubbed in it." They gave us all buttons with the logo and February 13, 1993 on it. It is the only piece of memorabilia that I have with that logo on it.

After several efforts went askew, Copeland Hirthler was asked to step in and design the Look of the Games, a cohesive plan to tie together disparate elements in an attractive, compelling way. Quilts and Leaves were obvious, but the way in which "The Look" was developed was very pleasing.

Everyone thinks they could have designed something better, for any Olympics, but with all of the warring factions called "the client" in the case of the Olympics, it is a miracle that anything ever gets approved. You have the local Organizing Committee, the Host City has a committee, then you have to deal with a special brand of megalomania in the International Olympic Committee.

And now I'm moving to London to look at this for the next few years.

Hopefully they won't have an Izzy…


On Jun.05.2007 at 11:37 PM
Sex Pistol’s comment is:

Comment #132:

MAKE THE LOGO BETTER

On Jun.06.2007 at 12:07 AM
Hollis’s comment is:

from CR Blog:

If you stare at it long enough, some dirty-minded bloggers have been saying, it kind of looks like Lisa Simpson giving someone a blow job.

On Jun.06.2007 at 12:18 AM
marko savic’s comment is:

The system is really cool, it'll be fun to see it on TV (in high definition!) It's alive. The colours are bright and lively, and it very much reminds me of punk music in England in the 70s/80s not that I was alive then, or British, but from what I've seen I find it very English looking. All of the right elements are there but the forms are so out of balance it doesn't give the logo any chance of living outside of the system, which is how we see it now. The right is far too heavy, the 0 too large and 2/hyphen/London Square Mile What-Have-You is just plain... weird. You could still have this idea and not have it be so unbalanced. Formally it's very schizophrenic, it just needs some help.

As for london, the perfectly geometric o with the ragged shaped letters (especially the harsh d) makes it incredibly irksome.

Great writeup Armin. I want to believe in it, but everythings just falling a bit short of perfection.

On Jun.06.2007 at 12:30 AM
DesignMaven’s comment is:

Michelle:

Interesting comments and recollection.

I'm writing from memory; your account of the
Aesthetic of Copeland Hirthler Identity vs Landor's Identity for the Games doesn't Resonate.

My personal opinion not having known Jerry at the time.

Landor's Identity was far Superior to Copeland Hirthler's A Star Identity.

That's my personal opinion.

Certainly your assessment is not what the PUBLISHED Article in CommArts or Print on the 1996 Summer Olympic Games and Copeland Hirthler reported.

Unfortunately I cannot lay hands on that article in my archive. I think its in storage.

I believe your recollection of Brad Copeland's demeanor. I've only heard Great things about him.

Certain you're correct in your recollection, Landor was hired by the ACOG marketing director.

I've asked Jerry The King Kuyper to comment since he was Creative Director of Landor at the time.

Many thanks for sharing your insight from 1996 and keeping me on the Edge of My Seat.

DM

The Hostile Takeover of Corporate Identity

On Jun.06.2007 at 12:40 AM
RussD!’s comment is:

Design Mavin said, "Ole saying, How do get to Carnegie Hall???!!!! PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE!!!!!!!"

Is this advice that you're giving to Wolff Olins or me? I'm feeling more confused than schooled.

A question comes to my mind: What does Wolff Olins do? What does the London 2012 committee do? A bunch of people (designers and not) are griping and complaining about their brand. Do they change it? Do they leave it? I've just been thinking about how I'd respond to this sort of negativity, and I have to believe they'll stand by it.

How would you respond to a "persecution" of a design you believed in. You've read their writings on the logo; it's damn poetry. There are people that love this brand (namely Wolff Olins) and I know with things I love I tend to become defensive, but I always try to remember something that William Faulkner once said: "Kill your darlings."

Now, do I seriously think they're going to re-design their logo? No way. I wouldn't, and I'm sure none of you seasoned french fries would either, but they need to respond to the public somehow. Address the negative outcry against the brand and open up some dialogue. I want to hear from Wolff Olin and Co. and really see something happen.

Blogging is fun, but let's push for some action. I'm not sure how or what, but as Design Mavin so nicely put, I'm only 19. What's your excuse?

Blog Blog Blog Blah Blah Blah, let's try and do something.

On Jun.06.2007 at 01:02 AM
Bobby Henderson’s comment is:

My first impression of this 2012 Olympics branding was "WTF?"

The logo reminded me of blocky Katagana lettering to describe a sound effect on a Japanese comic book page.

I also imagined the inspiration of that design may have come via post traumatic visions after a merciless beating by a hoard of football hooligans. Skull fractures, broken bones, broken glass. The pink color could be for exposed internal organs.

I don't know. I just don't get any kind of pleasant, free flowing feelings from that logo.

While I can agree this design is pretty different and deserves points for being daring, I'm also skeptical this design can endure the next 5 years leading up to the London games. After people stop laughing or saying "WTF" they're probably going to get tired of it pretty quick.

On Jun.06.2007 at 01:02 AM
Frank’s comment is:

Ok i already said i think the logo sucks for various reasons.

Just some additional thought crossed my mind:

The Olympics are in 2012, right ?

Like, isn't this a prime example of the golden logo rule "don't design too trendy" ?!

I mean, even *IF* the logo would appeal to todays young hip generation, how in the world can anyone think this very same logo will *STILL* be attractive *BY THEN* ?

5 years is like 20 years for a logo so much based on trendiness like this one; probably by 2012 all the 80's retro craziness will be long gone, fashion will have changed, Arctic Monkeys will be a band no one remembers, Myspace and Second Life will have been replaced etc etc - only this ridiculous symbol of wannabe-trendiness will still exist.

It's actually quite sad if you think about it.

On Jun.06.2007 at 01:09 AM
Simone’s comment is:

London....don't worry too much about the logo....by the time the flame arrives at the 2012 Olympic Stadium you'll all lose your minds with excitement & won't give a toss about logo's. Think about GOLD MEDALS and the awesome experience of hosting the Olympics.
Sydney was a highlight of my adult life....and our logo have NOTHING to do with it.

On Jun.06.2007 at 01:15 AM
RussD!’s comment is:

Simone. Come on. Think about the website you're on. This is a forum for people to talk about all things design, and in light of that logos matter. Alot. It's disrespectful for you to just invalidate all the interesting dialogue going on here. Speak up isn't toted as, "A Place To Not Worry About Logos Much." We're designers; let us talk about all things design.

I mean you might as well just call up Gary Hustwit and tell him that he's a jerk for making a movie about Helvetica, because it's just a typeface.

Side note: Who here is gunning for Chicago 2016?

On Jun.06.2007 at 01:29 AM
DesignMaven’s comment is:

RussD!

You iterated you were 19 not me.

You haven't LIVED LONG ENOUGH nor have the Life Experience or EXPOSURE I have.

Statement of Fact. You made an assessment of the work Iconologic commenced for the Torino Games.

Some Designers thought Iconologic work for the Tornio Games was Good others thought it was too Heavy on Translucent Illustrator Quackery.

My personal opinion, I thought the work was interesting and broke the bounds of Olympic Icon Tradition.

I pointed out, Iconologic, formerly Copeland Hirthler had some Growing Pains to get where they are today. Because of their Struggle learned an invaluable lesson from the 1996 Summer Olympic Games.

Yes, Iconologic kept going DUG THEIR HELLS INTO THE GROUND and Persevered.

That's what I meant by How Do Get to Carnie Hall, Practice, Practice, Practice. They never looked back. They never gave up.

What's my Excuse. Son, there isn't ANYONE LIVING IN THE UNIVERSE WITH MY KNOWLEDGE OF CORPORATE IDENTITY. Bar None!!!

ASK AROUND???!!!

Michelle:

I read the link you provided. If memory serve me correctly much of the online article you provided was the same information shared in CommArts or Print 1996-1997.

The Identity shown on the sight is Landor's Identity, top right adjacent to text under Identity Program.

I see Copeland Hirthler's Identity in the small photos not large enough for others to see.

Care to upload compare and contrast Copeland Hirthler's Identity with Landor?!

Any resentment of Landor's involvement with the HOTLANTA 1996 Summer Olympic Games is because Landor was considered an Outsider and not a native of HOTLANTA.

Popular Opinion, Brad Copeland was the Native Son and should've received the Opportunity to Design the Official 1996 Olympic Games Identity.

DM

The Hostile Takeover of Corporate Identity

On Jun.06.2007 at 01:31 AM
Frank’s comment is:

RussD don't worry - DM has just forgot to take his pills..:)

On Jun.06.2007 at 01:34 AM
Simone’s comment is:

Oh sorry RussD. No disrespect intended. I hope the Logo "Designers" are not in charge of the UK Olympic uniforms! That would certainly entertain the Global audience.

On Jun.06.2007 at 02:01 AM
RussD!’s comment is:

1. It's true I did reveal my age, but I'm actually 36. Just kidding, I revealed my age so you guys knew where I was coming from. I do have much regard for experience, and I am excited for the day when I can be condascending towards young designers. Unfortunately, that day will never come because I believe in a thing called respect, regardless of age, and maybe instead of "schooling" I'll try to do some teaching and sharing. Maybe.

2. DM, so do you think that Wolff Olins is experiencing growing pains? I want to see the connection between Wolff Olins and Iconologic (formerly Copeland Hirthler) from your pespective.

3. "Son, there isn't ANYONE LIVING IN THE UNIVERSE WITH MY KNOWLEDGE OF CORPORATE IDENTITY. Bar None!!! ASK AROUND???!!"
Well I asked Google (because they were up at this hour) who you were and here is what I got.
Who IS the DM

4. But seriously answer my question: are you saying Wolff Olins needs practice or what?

Love,
The Youth

PS. Simone, its cool ;)

On Jun.06.2007 at 02:04 AM
DesignMaven’s comment is:

RussD!

You were Disrespectful by the tone of your Post toward my commentary of your assessment of Iconologic.

Do you think it's CUTE or Proper Etiquette to be Flippant or Unappreciative of someone Disseminating Factual Information for your benefit that you were not Privy???!!!!

If you do. In that Respect, you deserve my Heavy Handedness.

I'm Cordial to people that are Cordial to me.

I never understood why people come on this site and others and tend to be AGGRESSIVE and embarrass themselves.

Ole Saying:

'It is better to Remain Silent and be thought a FOOL than to OPEN your Mouth and Remove all Doubt".

If you read anything I've written on the London 2012 Olympic Identity. Your question to me is a Rhetorical Question.

I've never commented on the Identity Publicly (period).

Instead, I addressed the mechanics of Identity Design in reference to the Scope and Magnitude of London 2012 Olympic Games.

Many Identities I never comment on because I don't find them interesting. I don't publicly engage in Group Condemnation of an Identity.

At this stage, if you are completely OBLIVIOUS I was addressing your comment of Iconologic and not Wolf Olins.

This converation warrant No Further involvement of me.

DM

The Hostile Takeover of Corporate Identity

On Jun.06.2007 at 02:54 AM
Michelle French’s comment is:

DM, I have wasted far too many hours today searching. The Torino stuff from Iconologic is online.

There is very little showcasing the Look of the Games, even though everyone in town worked on something related to the Games, following the Copeland Look. Most likely because in the early '90s, we weren't plastering everything we touched on the internet. The article I linked earlier was at Georgia Tech, not known for their visual design savvy. That's why they are friends with us Auburn folk.

On Jun.06.2007 at 03:21 AM
MarkR’s comment is:

If the fellatio interpretation wasn't so obvious, then those of you who think people are looking too hard would have a point - I'm surprised that the designers (apparently) didn't spot it.

That aside, I agree with marko savic (although I'm not as enthusiastic about the whole concept); the static/frozen form of the thing just has too many faults for me (esp. the fragmented fourth digit).

On Jun.06.2007 at 04:46 AM
Brad’s comment is:

WOLFFOLINS ... DON'T YOU THINK YOU'RE TAKING THE WHOLE NU-RAVE THING A TAD FAR!!!!!!

The logo make me wanna vomit blood. Thanks for establishing that British design is utter crap and the only decent shit will always be Swedish.

On Jun.06.2007 at 05:20 AM
Jan Sabach’s comment is:

This debate has taken an entirely new turn. Can this logo (or rather the visual language of the olympics) be actually bad for your health? Here is an article from The Guardian.

On Jun.06.2007 at 05:48 AM
Al Woods’s comment is:

The Metro free paper over here in Manchester is running a feature on the logo. Basically to see what the public can create with the shapes.

Here is my favourite and pretty much sums it up from a joe public, taking the logo as it meant to be taken (visually), without the boardroom bullshit sales pitch in toe.

On Jun.06.2007 at 06:12 AM
Al Woods’s comment is:

Woah Brad!!

Yep, Scandinavian design is lush in a clinically awesome way but Brit design is far from shit.

Which brings up another point now...not only is this logo harmful to everyone who sees it but it could potentially damage our design scene.

On Jun.06.2007 at 06:15 AM
Mangoboom’s comment is:

I think its a genius approach.

Wolf Ollins and the 2012 committee have turned the business of branding on its head and have established a brand new methodology for inclusive identity development.

We've all missed the boat here - they've fooled the entire world and led them down a truly dynamic and interactive approach to identity design and the business of branding.

..let me explain.

Wolf Ollins Have released this design into the blogosphere , perfect in the knowledge that it will be immediately despised by 90% of the great unwashed. In response to this the great community of bloggers, designers, art students, school kids and artists will re-design there own versions. Pages will spring up on MySpace, Second Life, Face Book etc. showing more inspired and relevant designs.The BBC will feature these designs on their website, TV and Radio channels. The great British Public will decide.

A new logo will be chosen based on an audience of millions - the new logo will have been designed with passion by a street kid with an Etch-A-Sketch, a love of London and sport; and will be championed as the true identity of the Olympics. Simon Cowell and Wally Olins will give the winner a big hug on Saturday night TV. "Brand X Factor".

Identity design by user-generated content - its new media, it's "Yoof", it's cutting edge, it's inclusive, it's contemporary, it's genius and above all it's sustainable ( well isn't everything these days ?).

Polarise the nation, encourage rioting in the streets over a logo (the greatest mass gathering of an iconic graphic design since Nuremberg) and then let them build something better. Democracy in action. The Romans would have been proud.

Its why they get paid £400k for their thinking and brand strategy - Wolff Ollins and the 2012 committee are way ahead of the curve here - we're just mere hamsters on their wheel of creativity.

Its a brave new world and we've all just been had....

On Jun.06.2007 at 06:35 AM
Warren Hutchinson’s comment is:

Nice to see some support. I’m trying to collate the supporting rationale here: http://tailwind.wordpress.com/tag/london-2012/

On Jun.06.2007 at 06:47 AM
AL’s comment is:

What would be the public response if we were shown the Mexico 86 logo alone? Shit, crap, doesn't say anything about Mexico, where's the Olympic Spirit and so on? Give it a credit.

And all this negative energy supported by crappy press & tv news seekeing for a scandal - the significant symbol of our times - don't analyse just throw the meat.

From London 2012 blog:
http://blog.london2012.com/?p=477#more-477

"We have built a brand identity which has over 40,000 elements, which will evolve over the coming months and years in many smart ways".

"It’s not about the shape. It’s not about the colours. It’s about what we can do with it - there is a lot more to see, and you’ll see it soon".

I'd love to see it evolving here in London and I think it has the potential to succeed.

(and if the £400k is for that 40 grand of design elements it's a bargain)

On Jun.06.2007 at 07:20 AM
wayne’s comment is:

in spite of all the emperor's sycophants spin doctoring about his new clothes logo, crap is still crap.

On Jun.06.2007 at 08:44 AM
Tselentis’s comment is:

I've got to admit, this 2012 identity is growing on me, but then again, it could be my lust for Swatches, Transformers, He-Man, Saved by the Bell, and the Cosby Show. Nostalgia, ain't it a bitch?!

On Jun.06.2007 at 09:10 AM
Bo’s comment is:

Despite its ugliness, everyone keeps talking about what an incredible system it is. I have to disagree, not on the ugly part, but on being an incredible system. As a system I think it's anything but incredible... basically, throw up a graphic chunk with saturated colors and your done with branding. And there you go... you've got a system that reflects the ugliness of the logo. If it were the '80s this branding system would be indistinguishable from most others of that era.

Nothing about it is unique to the Olympics or even 2012, personally I couldn't see the 2012 until it was pointed out... that's a failure in my book. Frank's comment about the hyphen representing the "square mile" is the only that makes sense for that graphic anomaly, and sadly is the only element that represents what a logo is supposed to.

On Jun.06.2007 at 09:24 AM
Mark’s comment is:

Consider these two questions:

1. Do you really think that this logo will actually be used in the Olympic games?

2. How would you feel about the identity if it was your city that was hosting the games?

just think,picture yourself in these situations, and then it'll truly show how successful or great this logo actually is.

On Jun.06.2007 at 09:32 AM
b spiller’s comment is:

check out my cool take on the 2012 logo redesign.

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/barbawhiskey

note: this is copyrighted and registered artwork, all rights reserved. violaters will be beaten and exposed. ps - if youre offended, its not for you anyway. cheers

On Jun.06.2007 at 09:36 AM
DesignMaven’s comment is:

Mangoboom:

I absolutely LOVE the Etch-A-Sketch Reference.
Toys from my Generation.

Michelle:

Many thanks for your Valuable Insight and References.

My Business Partner Jerry The King Kuyper sent me an email this morning.

He thought my comment based on my recollection of the CommArts or Print Article was appropros.

We're the Classic Example of Martin and Lewis.

He Older, Wiser, Worldly, The Brains, Talent, and Connected. I'm the Spine The Glue, Equal Talent, Voice of Reason, that keep us together.

You can read more on my Business Partner at the link below.

http://www.logolounge.com/articles/default.asp?Archive=True&ArticleID=511

If the link doesn't load. Go to Logo Lounge.com
Click on Featured Designer and click on Jerry Kuyper.

DM

The Hostile Takeover of Corporate Identity

On Jun.06.2007 at 09:46 AM
Travis Tom’s comment is:

I consider myself somewhat of an icon specialist. I believe the pictograms for the Atlanta Games was farmed out to a design firm up in Boston or somewhere (can't remember the name right off and i heard the principle speak at UGA). The Torino Games pictograms were some of the best icon series I've seen lately for a sporting event--when the article came out in Communication Arts...I was compelled to send a congratulatory e-mail to the designer/design firm. I just saw the Beijing pictograms a few days ago and these are quite nice too. Lillehiemer pictograms are refreshing too. I just hope the pictograms for the London Games are not going to mimic this current logo...blocky sharp angled paper cutout shapes that would be difficult to figure out what sporting event it is.

I had friends from school on the ACOG (Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games) one was involved in designing the look and feel for the tickets and the other designed a set of brochures. My dream job is to be involved in designing the pictograms for one of the games. I would quit my job in a heart beat if I was offered an opportunity to work as a designer/illustrator for the Games.

On Jun.06.2007 at 09:50 AM
Nic’s comment is:

this is fun, too bad there's life to cope with too.
yes, the logo looks like shit, but as bruce willis said on the movie -fast food nation- while chewing on a "possibly" coli-tainted burger...

eventually, there's always a moment when all of us get to eat a bit of it...

Plus, ---grow up!---, democracy is -not- about "pleasing the masses". Look at Venezuela's proto-dictator Hugo Chavez and his ill dumbification and oppression of the people using gold painted mirrors.

And even if so; who said that an olympic organization was a standard of democracy? it's a business just like selling hot dogs, and in the end all those logo-hating london people will be glad if their taxes don't go up because a lot of people did attend because of the "unavoidably ugly logo that I can't take off my mind, and gives me seizures damn!"
LOL

On Jun.06.2007 at 09:58 AM
Lena ’s comment is:

I was watching the Today show, and they said that the new ad must be changed because it has already sent several people to hospital in epileptic fits! Unbelievable! They also mentioned they were having a vote on their website on whether their viewers liked the logo or not.

On Jun.06.2007 at 10:00 AM
Mark’s comment is:

Regardless whether you hate it or not, I think what bothers most people is that the logo for the London Olympics has ended up to be........disappointing.

I mean c'mon, admit it many people were excited that a big famous city was finally hosting the Olympic games!

No doubt many people dreamed of the Olympics being in a well-known popular city that is famous world wide. Weren't many people sick of seeing recently, the Olympic Games, a huge sporting event, filled with excitement in lesser known cities?

I mean many people never even heard of Nagano, Turino,or Seoul,or Albertville, or Lilliehammer, you can't picture yourself in any of these places.

Sure, sure there was Sydney, but that city isn't really one with a lot of publicity, Atlanta, yeah that was great, but again not worldwide known city, Athens was definitely famous, but thats filled with ruins, and it's not that big.

Many people were anticipating are more exciting city, a big one, thats fit to host a huge event such as the Olympics.

Then in happened, it first started when news got around that New York was a candidate for the games, New York now we're talking!

People got hugely excited about it, finally a famous city was having a possibility of hosting the Olympic games, what better place than New York?

The diversity,the locations, the sites, the sounds, it was perfect! What else was on peoples minds? whats the logo going to look like?

Everybody got curious what was going to represent the New York games,they hoped it would be good...

Then we finally got to see it......many people were stunned "thats what the logo is?" and disappointment and jokes insued.

Of course, New York lost the bid and instead London was chosen, still it was a plus that this was a famous widely known city.

London is vibrant, famous for it sites such as Big Ben, Tower Bridge, it's double decker buses, it's a growing city, a city in transition, one with emerging businesses, and gaining a new image in the future.

So many were wondering what will be the logo that will sum up the excitement of actually seeing the Olympics in London, the sights, the sounds, what identity will truly express the anticipation, and the thrill of the London Olympics,what will it be? We could hardly wait to see it we we're hoping for something astonishing, something that will make us say "wow".

Now, we finally get to see it and think, THIS is what the identity will be to represent the London Olympic games? Thats it? thats the logo?

Howe can this fit into something as huge and spectacular as having London hosting the Olympic games? This is a big, media buzzing, historical, spectacular sporting event, ever broadcasted in the entire world! It's not something minor as the X-games, this is a worldwide competition!

It's not fitting it's too basic and minor looking without the Olympic Symbol in it, it's disappointing to many people.

It's design is made to be smaller in significance, it just doesn't truly represent a big Olympic event.

It needs something more.

On Jun.06.2007 at 10:30 AM
Daren Guillory’s comment is:

Russ D
Side note: Who here is gunning for Chicago 2016?

Chicago all the way in 2016! (chanting) VSA,VSA,VSA!

On Jun.06.2007 at 10:35 AM
szkat’s comment is:

"I was watching the Today show, and they said that the new ad must be changed because it has already sent several people to hospital in epileptic fits! Unbelievable!"


BBC news is backing that up

On Jun.06.2007 at 11:00 AM
steviegene’s comment is:

I feel like I missed out - I didnt get to see the video.
They have removed it - due to risk of epileptic seizures.

On Jun.06.2007 at 11:07 AM
Stevie Wonder’s comment is:

I think the logo looks great!!!

On Jun.06.2007 at 11:28 AM
ed mckim’s comment is:

Since he refuses to join us on Brand New for Identity Discussions. Damn Speak Up Elitism!!!!

I can't say I can blame him for that

On Jun.06.2007 at 11:29 AM
Simon’s comment is:

I think the logo is wrong for the games. Write exscuses all you want, but the logo is a car wreck...I can't help but stare. Shouldn't a logo be self evident? Anyway, any publicity is good publicity.

On Jun.06.2007 at 11:41 AM
Design’s comment is:

So much for an idea.

On Jun.06.2007 at 11:51 AM
richard’s comment is:

Does anyone remember Whatizit from the games held in Atlanta (http://www.izzypins.com/history.php)? Exactly! And they spun the hell out of that too. But in the end, it sucked! They wanted him/it to be everything to everyone and in the end was nothing to nobody!

I believe all the thought behind the design, but the execution still falls incredibly flat for me.

On Jun.06.2007 at 12:04 PM
grubedoo’s comment is:

I think the potential applications of the logo and corresponding visual language are the power and beauty of the mark. The possibilities are unique and endless.

The logo itself is a bit clunky, but much more rememberable than any other Olympic logo in recent history. Sure the rationale behind it is a bit bloated and high-brow, but isn't that what separates a good designer from a great one -- the ability to b.s.?

On Jun.06.2007 at 12:29 PM
Jason’s comment is:

Typical of modernist 'artists.' They think by adding some flowery language about 'dynamic new approach' and 'symbolizing our modern world' they can snow people into believing this trash is actually artistic. The problem is, with all these ignorant people who like anything that's different, they're right. I expected a great deal more from London.

On Jun.06.2007 at 12:42 PM
Rachel’s comment is:

I understand the brightness of color and I feel that probably are worth keeping. I suggest softening the shapes and a vast array of colors to represent the differences that everyone participating will have. The olympics are about the abilities of these athletes who are driven by their spirits daily. While I have never been and will never be an olympic athlete, I'm still an athlete and I can attest that training is more of a steady climb with a few plateaus but rarely, if ever, a drastic immediate change in any direction. I also feel that seperate shapes would exemplify the different parts are the world that are being brought together by a common thread. But above all.....get your money back.....you got robed!

I just got my Marketing degree and I could have done a better job than this guy......and he's been doing this stuff forever and probably went to some awesome school. Like I said, just get your money back.

On Jun.06.2007 at 12:50 PM
Larry Pringle’s comment is:

Mr Maven, you're sharper than ever with the
'To Catch a Predator' reference.

Thanks for exposing that virus.

On Jun.06.2007 at 12:50 PM
RussD!’s comment is:

Grubedoo,
Simply put: no. What separates a good designer from a great one is not b.s.-ing a bloated and high-brow concept. It's being able to put forth a genuine concept that you believe in, which the public can believe in too. At least in regards to this site, the majority of people here don't believe in the logo, and all the people signing the petition don't. I mean there's a petition for goodness sake!

Come on. I think its a shame that difference between good and bad design for you can be boiled down to the ability to b.s. I don't want to be too harsh, but re-evaluate your process as a designer, and try to graft out the b.s. as an out for poor conceptual rationale.

Or am I being too ideal?

On Jun.06.2007 at 12:51 PM
RussD!’s comment is:

Grubedoo,
Simply put: no. What separates a good designer from a great one is not b.s.-ing a bloated and high-brow concept. It's being able to put forth a genuine concept that you believe in, which the public can believe in too. At least in regards to this site, the majority of people here don't believe in the logo, and all the people signing the petition don't. I mean there's a petition for goodness sake!

Come on. I think its a shame that difference between good and bad design for you can be boiled down to the ability to b.s. I don't want to be too harsh, but re-evaluate your process as a designer, and try to graft out the b.s. as an out for poor conceptual rationale.

Or am I being too ideal?

On Jun.06.2007 at 12:54 PM
grubedoo’s comment is:

lol

On Jun.06.2007 at 01:00 PM
America's Youth’s comment is:

I'm a member of "America's Youth" and, honestly, I totally understand the logo. I'm obviously one teenager among the millions worldwide, but generally I "get" items that are supposed to speak to me. Maybe I'm part of the "uneducated public," but for what it's worth I understand it.
And by the way, does no one else see the resemblance to the layout of continents? Or am I just reading too far into it?
Sam

On Jun.06.2007 at 01:01 PM
Jake Brumby’s comment is:

Can you do a better logo?

London 2012 logo competition

Submit your own logo and let the public decide if you dare.

So far, 94% of people say NO to the one that Seb Coe has chosen.

On Jun.06.2007 at 01:02 PM
SK’s comment is:

Vibrant doesn't have to equal NEON
Young doesn't have to equal JAGGED EDGES
And young people doesn't have to mean lame graphics and cheesy motion reels

Perhaps if the Olympics were being held in the backwoods of the Czech Republic or Slovinia or Staten Island, then this logo would be current and applicable. As it is, it looks like it was designed by some old fogey remembering HIS youth and trying to capture it. If designers want to target young consumers, how's about actually talking WITH them, rather than at them.

The logo is lame, uninspired and uninspiring. Neon and overdeveloped, overhyped and overused tragigraphics do not a successful campaign make.

On Jun.06.2007 at 01:05 PM
Eva’s comment is:

If my six-year-old had done this I would be pretty proud of him. Otherwise, this is pretty bad. You've GOT to be kidding, right? What about this says anything about the spirit of competition, the glory of the Olympics? Nothing. It's an MTV kind of thing. -- Not proud of it.

On Jun.06.2007 at 01:19 PM
Meredith’s comment is:

See, that's what's wrong with todays advertising people. They are trying to advertise to the younger crowd, my age people, to get them interested in their product/service/event. But, because they don't think about what we want to see, and they don't ask us what we like, they end up making something stupid and offending. I, personally, think that it looks like a bunch of first graders cut out a bunch of shapes and shoved them together, slapped the Olympic rings and London on two of the pieces. It's a mess! I don't think that it represents the prestige and honnor of the Olympics. Are people still going to watch/go to the Olympics if they use that logo? Yes. But the question is...How quickly are people going to get sick of seing something that is so.....obtrusive.....annoying....ugly? I think something with softer lines and color would be better.

On Jun.06.2007 at 01:23 PM
Meredith’s comment is:

I just clicked on another link that took me to a page where they had some amateur renderings of the Olympic logo. I LOVE the first one. It is simple enough that any generation will understand what they are trying to say. But it has a shape that would appeal to the younger crowd. I really think that this design would make a better logo. Check it out for yourself.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6719747.stm

What do you think?

On Jun.06.2007 at 01:40 PM
Dayn’s comment is:

Amazing.


The logo's defenders are more amazing tha the logo itself.

It's simply terrible. It's not brave, not effective - the ad's computer work could've been done with 1970's special effects.

The response questioning "Olympic ideals" (I'm NOT defending their claimed "ideals") and stating it's a "big ass event" which is changing so its acoutremount must change also...really stands as an example of the "out of touch" nonsense which produced this waste of Olympic Committee funds.

This Logo works on no level. The best idea would be that it's not too late to find a new one.

Rather than noting a "big ass" event, I'd think it would be more apropos to note that "This emperor has NO NEW CLOTHES; he's butt-ass naked".

On Jun.06.2007 at 01:44 PM
Jake’s comment is:

Meredith, I think the one in that link is better and more relevant than that abismal attempt that the Olympic commity have chosen.

On Jun.06.2007 at 01:54 PM
Stephen’s comment is:

The problem with this logo is that the letters look like broken apart fragments. This seems in direct contrast to the intertwined symbolic rings representing the interactions of the participating countries.

On Jun.06.2007 at 02:17 PM
Anthony’s comment is:

A logo is just a logo. But who care for the olympica anyway. its just a waste of time. ALL COMPETITION IS USELESS...But hey, that is only my subjective opinion....

On Jun.06.2007 at 02:34 PM
Rob’s comment is:

DM, good to read your insight. I knew I missed something about not coming around as often.

Beyond the aesthetics at hand, there's a much bigger problem I have with this effort. A logo, no matter who its from or for, should never become the news. The big story. Sure, on a design blog it's the norm. But not on Today, The Times of London and other mainstream media. (Sure, you can try and tell me that this coverage is good for design.)

The logo, love or hate it, is overshadowing the event it is supposed to represent. People all over the globe are talking about the mark and not the Olympics. And this is wrong.

You may want to call the system fabulous, flexible and full of motion. But all of that right now is being irrelevant because the world's focus is on the logo. And I'm really not sure how playing with the shapes, etc... on the web site promotes the Olympics. It promotes are growing digital, web-based, Wii-loving culture. But people are still sitting down. And last time I checked, that wasn't an Olympic event.

On Jun.06.2007 at 02:41 PM
drj’s comment is:

Another absolute waste of time, money
and resources.
My fourth graders have the
ability to far surpass this mess. And they
will do it for free!

On Jun.06.2007 at 02:42 PM
Hitu’s comment is:

I think the logo is rather different and it trys to venture into a an ultra-modern world of design, though it gets stuck between a childrens coloring book and the need to become intelligent. It is peculier that the lower three elements are not in any way interconnected to the symbol of the olympics or even the city of london...which the upper two elements do somewhat effectively. It is easy to draw a shape and place the the olympic logo within it and write "london" in another space ..but how does every element intertwine and become a whole ...reading as ONE element defining the olympic experience and tradition.

On Jun.06.2007 at 02:50 PM
Kari K’s comment is:

I consider myself a normal, everyday, American citizen. Not too many things abnormal happen in my life and I live by and follow the rules and regulations - just like a majority of the people do in this country. There are a SMALL percentage of us who are "Designers" and "Marketing Analysts" and more of us - I would believe - that are just like me. 7am-3pm job and I also run my own small business, have a family and do things like mow the lawn, clean the house and go to the movies.

This logo to me - is awful - it has no flow or rhyme or reason. I just think - no matter what color it is in - it hurts my eyes and it's ugly. I usually buy at least 1 thing each year, a t-shirt or a hat, sold at a local store with the Olympics logo. This time - I don't think so. And truthfully, 800,000.00 for this? When have people living in poverty, dying by a rapid progression of the AIDS virus and disease without known cures...I guess they thought of no better way than to spend that loot on this AWFUL logo...that will NEVER BE REMEMBERED.

On Jun.06.2007 at 03:11 PM
Armin’s comment is:

> The logo, love or hate it, is overshadowing the event it is supposed to represent. People all over the globe are talking about the mark and not the Olympics. And this is wrong.

Rob, sorry, but you are completly ignoring the context. Monday's announcement was ALL about the logo and nothing more. There is nothing to talk about in regards to the Olympics... since, you know, they are not going to happen for another five years. The logo is the news. Nothing wrong with that.

On Jun.06.2007 at 03:12 PM
Jon’s comment is:

If you slap the Olympic rings on an image of a penis, that'd be memorable. Making something memorable isn't hard. Making something attractive, that's apparently very hard. I guess that would have taken another 800k.

On Jun.06.2007 at 03:18 PM
RJAugust’s comment is:

I have a gross of IZZY dolls (ATL - 1996)
which you will obviously need
to go along with your new Logo.

On Jun.06.2007 at 03:24 PM
Matthew McNerney’s comment is:

I can't even begin to fathom how many ways this thing is wrong. It's the worst logo I've seen in YEARS. Ugh. I wrote an in depth commentary about it here:

http://www.zoom-in.com/blog/2007/06/2012_logo_a_total_trainwreck

On Jun.06.2007 at 03:29 PM
Rob’s comment is:

Armin,

Yes, I overlooked that context. Purposefully? No, not really.

Just maybe there is something wrong with making the logo more important than the event it supposedly represents, no matter how far off it may be.

On Jun.06.2007 at 03:30 PM
Simone Runyan’s comment is:

The Chicago "brushtroke" referred to by a previous poster is brilliant! It's obvious to me! It symbolizes both the Olympic Torch and part of the Chicago skyline. The "flame" is buildings, and the torch itself is the buildings being reflected in the lake which runs around the city.
I dislike the London logo very much. So what if it's "dynamic"? A three-year-old might have put it together with felt cut-outs on a felt board. It means nothing, represents nothing, and doesn't show much thought in any direction. It certainly doesn't pay tribute to anything London might have to offer!

On Jun.06.2007 at 03:46 PM
Richard Wood’s comment is:

I can't believe adults charged with the care and spending of money in a responsible manner actually approved . I would think they will have to make restitution and possibly do some community service--it is a crime to approve anything this hideous!!

On Jun.06.2007 at 04:02 PM
Richard Wood’s comment is:

I can't believe adults charged with the care and spending of money in a responsible manner actually approved . I would think they will have to make restitution and possibly do some community service--it is a crime to approve anything this hideous!!

On Jun.06.2007 at 04:03 PM
Nancy Baxendale’s comment is:

I believe they could throw paint at a wall and come up with a better looking logo.

On Jun.06.2007 at 04:19 PM
RussD!’s comment is:

Designers,
We broke two hundred with the comments. This is great. I love how much passion and dialogue this logo has pulled out of us as designers. I was looking at the back catalogue and I haven't seen this many comments on any previous posts (I only went back a couple months though).

Kudos!

On Jun.06.2007 at 04:22 PM
Magdalena’s comment is:

Personally I think this logo looks like a stylized Swastika It's not pretty nor empowering..
Not inspiring. I think they could do better.

On Jun.06.2007 at 04:28 PM
Héctor Muñoz’s comment is:

I read on Isopixel that the shapes of the numbers resemble the continents on a map. The thing is that somebody had to point it out but also now I can see Lisa Simpson doing you know what.

On Jun.06.2007 at 04:34 PM
Armin’s comment is:

RussD, the last 200+ comment discussion (mentioned early on here by Su) was for another naughty logo: VH1.

> And truthfully, 800,000.00 for this? When have people living in poverty, dying by a rapid progression of the AIDS virus and disease without known cures...

That's it. End of discussion. Everybody pack your bags.

Seriously Kari, sorry for the sarcasm, but with that argument, nothing we do (from going to the movies at $10 a ticket, or a Broadway show at $100 a ticket, or nice $16 bottle of wine, or a $20 subscription to Netflix, or a $1,500 vacation, etc.) would ever be reasonable enough, nor justifiable.

On Jun.06.2007 at 04:34 PM
Lisa G.’s comment is:

Visually illiterate and oddly uncomfortable. Just a brief gaze at the pink and white version actually made me queasy!

On Jun.06.2007 at 04:36 PM
Lisa G.’s comment is:

Visually illiterate and oddly uncomfortable. Just a brief gaze at the pink and white version actually made me queasy!

On Jun.06.2007 at 04:38 PM
John’s comment is:

I detest this logo. I believe works of art, including logos, should have two main qualities: they should be beautiful and interesting. London 2012 certainly delivers on the latter, but it is woefully void of the former. Far from being beautiful, it is actually as ugly as sin.

The logo has another major flaw as well. It conveys neither a London nor an Olympic emotional feel. This is in stark contrast to Chicago 2016, which cleverly creates an Olympic torch out of the Chicago skyline and its reflection in Lake Michigan.

My London friends, please go back to the drawing board.

On Jun.06.2007 at 04:43 PM
disgruntled designer’s comment is:

Somewhere in the world one of our truly great identity designers is grabbing their chest and falling to the floor.

The only joy I get out of events like this is the new attention that it brings to our profession. Good or bad it is press that usually allows for many reputable designers to stand up and let their voices be heard. I also hold a bit of hope that one day the corporate and professional world will truly learn the difference between a branding agency and a graphic design firm and what they provide their clients. Perhaps Wolffie may have just billed their last $800,000 identity. I would like to know where they went completely wrong from their start as a solid identity design firm to this new low.

On Jun.06.2007 at 04:55 PM
Richard Casados’s comment is:

IN 1995 I had a major seizure when a red light like the color of a laser shot out of a CRT monitor it had a pattern of squares and tees and it took a split second upon seeing this that I quickly looked away but the damage was done. I came to 55 minutes later. This happened while I was in the Army Reserve and training at Camp Swift, TX. To this day the doctors at the VA in Albuquerque, call me a lier and that this never happened to me that I made it up. It hurt me very bad and something has to be done to stop this electromagnetic radation or Direct Energy Weapons.

On Jun.06.2007 at 04:56 PM
Jw’s comment is:

Doesn't the Olympics already have a logo? The rings, right? What's wrong with the damn rings? It's not like there's any competition to the Olympics. It's not like people need to be reminded about where it's going to be.

The rings, the name of the city, the word 'Olympics' the year. Done.

On Jun.06.2007 at 05:00 PM
Chuck O'Malley’s comment is:

What truly amazes me is that NBC would show the Olmpic logo several times this morning, June 6th, when the concern is that this film clip can cause seizures. What's up with that?

On Jun.06.2007 at 05:09 PM
Frank’s comment is:

To all that support the logo because it's "ultramodern", "fresh", "dynamic", "appeals to the youth of today" etc:

Do you think the very same logo will still be ultramodern, fresh, dynamic and appeal to the youth in 2012 - in other words, 5 years from now ?

There you have it.

On Jun.06.2007 at 05:33 PM
Eugen’s comment is:

I will say this... this a strong design.... and is obviously intended to affect people... and cause them to react. As such, it is extremely successful. Very effective. And plainly, extensively calculated... oh, yes... absolutely intended. And... further, as such, it is a "work of art." Yes... actual, true art!

HOWEVER... being a retired professional graphics designer, film-maker, artist, painter, myself...I can see well beyond the ordinary and initially apparant... as a result of my schooling... and experience. So... plainly (to me) THIS is an image that it is intended to disturb... to upset... to create and cause reaction beyond the norm... and far beyond the expected. (Indeed, exactly according to the reaction it is already receiving.) Essentually... and basically... it is a symbol of "WARNING"... right... much in league with the existing symbol for bio hazard and/or radiation.

AS such... would I attend an event with such a symbol promoting it? Hell, no! I, being not stupid, and so forewarned, would stay the hell away.

Just a suggestion.... There could well be associated text placed under it. "YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!"

On Jun.06.2007 at 05:37 PM
Darrel’s comment is:

"Do you think the very same logo will still be ultramodern, fresh, dynamic and appeal to the youth in 2012 - in other words, 5 years from now ?"

Hard to say. That said, if you can predict market style trends 5 years out, I'm guessing you're a billionaire already. ;o)

On Jun.06.2007 at 06:02 PM
Julia’s comment is:

All it conjures up for me is images of "Brokeback Mountain." Couldn't they have found a better way to spend the money?

On Jun.06.2007 at 06:10 PM
Michelle French’s comment is:

DM, Here is a link to Copeland Hirthler's look of the games for 1996.

DM, I do not understand where your attitude about the Landor logo comes from. NO ONE disputes that Landor did it. But the logo and its primary usage were the only parts that they did.

Mark, look at the above link. Look how easily a logo can be minimized. Haven't we all had clients with logos that we shrunk?

Travis Tom, the pictogram icons for Atlanta were done by Malcom Greer. Keep working on pictograms, it is one area that you could really carve a niche for yourself.

Julia, that's how much it cost. Period. Wish I had a few gigs like that. That money probably employed dozens of designers.

At this point the massive amounts I have read in the last two days have run together. In case it wasn't clarified here earlier, there are two logos for any Olympic Games: The "bid" logo, in which hopeful cities are not allowed use of the rings. After a city "wins" the next official logo incorporates the Rings.

No one else can use the Rings. The Varsity got nailed because they used their famous onion rings.

The day after Atlanta won, BellSouth ran a full page ad that read:

Ring Ring Ring
Ring Ring

On Jun.06.2007 at 06:29 PM
2012 Forever!’s comment is:

We think the image blows.

http://img9.imagepile.net/img9/12224olympicgschpunken.gif

On Jun.06.2007 at 06:37 PM
dan’s comment is:

I couldn't read every comment, but on argument was "if you watch the video it makes sense". I think if you have to watch a 2 minute video to understand the point of a logo then it fails to do it's mission.

On Jun.06.2007 at 06:44 PM
Stef’s comment is:

Personally I think the logo is just plain ugly. I don't think there is anything cutting edge about it at all. The motion graphics were nothing special and looked kind of thrown together.

On Jun.06.2007 at 07:51 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:

I am curious is the 'Coudal Partners' fans of the Pittsburgh Steelers?

I am just asking. ;-)


On Jun.06.2007 at 08:21 PM
Edward’s comment is:

The logo is a perfect example of Brit design efforts.

Check out modern Brit architecture.

The logo is hideous.

On Jun.06.2007 at 09:17 PM
Meredith’s comment is:

Thank you Jake. My father even agrees that the other one is better. It sure is a whole lot easier on the eyes.

For all of you who didn't see my comment, with the link to a better logo...here is a better logo, done by an amateur...probably for FREE!



On Jun.06.2007 at 11:08 PM
Frank’s comment is:

"Hard to say. That said, if you can predict market style trends 5 years out, I'm guessing you're a billionaire already."

Well i certainly can't predict what will be in style by 2012 (no billionaire here) but it's pretty unlikely that the same things, styles,trends that are hip now will still be hip by then.

So while i can't predict the future i think it's pretty safe to say that a logo like this that is based *so much* on what is hip *NOW* will probably not be that hip anymore in 5 years from now.

Wolff Olins should have taken a look at their client and realize that this client needed a logo that will survive all trends and styles for at least 5 years while appealing to all kinds of audiences.

But they did the exact opposite:

Designed a logo that depends on a certain temporary trend.

Designed a logo that mainly appeals to only one target audience.

It's like they broke all logo 101 rules they could and just for the sake of being "different" and maybe for the sake of "provoking".

But apparently they didn't care for what their client needed.

Hence, mission failed.

On Jun.06.2007 at 11:20 PM
richard’s comment is:

"Copeland Design, which became Copeland Hirthler (now Iconologic), was the design team who LANDED the Olympics for Atlanta. Their work for the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games (ACOG) broke ground for bid packages."

Were they the geniuses behind Whatizit?! That was a huge success. . .NOT!

On Jun.06.2007 at 11:34 PM
Mark’s comment is:

Looking at more closely I think it's supposed to represent an athlete at a running start.

Hint:

The first "2" is an arm looks like it's swayed back.

The "0" is a head

the "1" looks to be a leg

the second "2" is arm holding on to a leg

and I guess the thing in the middle is a gold metal perhaps?

If that was their intention, good but I'd wish they'd make it more easier to find it out, it took me days to figure it out.

If it wasn't then they've completely lost me in their apparent intentions of what this "thing" is supposed to represent besides a few vague statements.

On Jun.06.2007 at 11:42 PM
Mark ’s comment is:

That amateur logo is more coherent and makes more sense, much more understandable too, a lot of thought was put into that logo, unlike the real logo.

Whoever designed that logo with the word London incorporating the Olympic rings has talent, like the colors also how the Olympics designs used to be, clean and simple,sigh.

On Jun.07.2007 at 12:02 AM
Mark’s comment is:

It it just me or has anyone else noticed that the Olympic Rings haven't been shown in their traditional colors lately? Almost every time I've seen it during the Olympics it's almost been always white over a dark color such as blue, even in iceskating the boards that usually display the sponsors on a white back ground, now have been covered it dark colored graphics like the rest of the games.

Last time I've saw the logo in it's traditional colors was on the Olympic flag itself, I could swear I saw the the original colored logo displayed more prominently when I was younger seeing the Olympic games in the early 90s on tv.

On Jun.07.2007 at 12:12 AM
Noah’s comment is:

Von Glitschka, I was thinking more along the lines of the ol' AGENCY.COM:

These things happen.

Anyway, I'm not about liking a design just because it's complete, it's reproducible, etc. etc. That's focusing too much on the big picture of the craft, and geez, if you're spending 400,000 pounds you better get a graphic system that works on multiple mediums.

Just saying... if you have to think that hard about liking it, maybe it's really not that good.

On Jun.07.2007 at 12:14 AM
David Young’s comment is:

For those looking for information on the design of the grapics and environment for the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles... much of it was done by Deborah Sussman and her firm Sussman/Prejza. You can read about Deborah (and see a couple pics of the Olympics) here, and you can see additional pics on the Sussman/Prejza site (click projects -> Large Venues & Events -> 1984 Summer Olympic Games)

On Jun.07.2007 at 01:02 AM
sexxxygirls.com’s comment is:

totally reminds me of a bad abstract of Rodin’s “The Thinker” …. as in What WERE they THINKING?



On Jun.07.2007 at 01:47 AM
DesignMaven’s comment is:

Rob:

Thanks for the Shout Out. It's been a long time.

As I mentioned in Arm's Speak Up, What Next Editorial. On any given Sunday, Speak could easily get 100 or more post for any Major Identity Design.

At the time, Arm was disappointed and disgusted at the low number of Post on Speak Up.

Not being self congratulatory, as preusual I was correctomundo.

The Truth is Stranger than Fiction.

Michelle:

I'm not sure I have an attitude in reference to the Landor Summer Games Identity.

My comment was favoring Landor's Identity vs Copeland Hirthler Five Pointed "A" Star Identity. It was reported in CommArts or Print circa 1996-1997 Copeland Hirthler was unable to evolve, morph or go beyond their initial Imagineering to Develop the International Identity for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games. That was the reason the assignment was given to Landor.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Only Jerry can Repudiate what you iterated online because he was Creative Director at Landor in 1996 in charge of the Summer Olympic Games in Hotlanta.

Jerry is currently writing a proposal and unable to comment.

I am well aware No Identity Consultancy has a Monopoly on the Olympic Games. This was mandated in 1984 when Robert Miles Runyan Developed and Designed the Los Angeles Olympic Games Identity in 1980.

I discussed this on a Design Observer Thread three years ago. Michael Bierut wrote a wonderful and informative Editorial on Olympic Pictograms. This Editorial is Full to the Brim with information on Design for Olympics.

A Must Read for anyone wishing to further their knowledge on Olympic Identity Design.

The Graphic Design Olympics
Editorial by Michael Bierut

http://www.designobserver.com/archives/000191.html

An aside, Ping my email address. We need to talk offline. Send me something with your email address. I will contact you directly. I have a student in Atlanta, I'd like you to advise.

Vonster:

A bit of history you may not be Privy.

The Pittsburg Steelers Identity, (not the symbol you showing) was never Developed and Designed for the Pittsburg Steelers.

The Identity of the Pittsburg Steelers the four (4) stars is actually a Secondary Identity Originally Developed and Designed by Lippincott & Margulies for USS Steel (United States Steel).

The Primary USS (United States Steel) Identity was an Oval (Monogram) with the initials USS enclosed.

The Secondary Symbol USS Steel (the four pointed stars) was never Registered.

The Pittsburg Steelers adopted the USS four pointed Star Symbol for their team Identity.

Very similar, if you're old enough to remember The Yellow Pages Identity and Slogan, Let your fingers do the walking through Yellow Pages. That symbol was Developed and Designed by Young & Rubicam in the 1960s later Revitalized by SAUL BASS when he was retained for Bell Telephone System.

The Yellow Pages Identity of the fingers walking through the Yellow Pages was never Registered.

Anybody could use it.

Thus Pittsburg is an Industrial Town. Manufacturing Steel their Primary Source of Employment.

Thought this would interest you. Most people are unaware the Pittsburg Steelers Identity was never Designed or intended to be their Logo. It was adopted by the Steelers because the USS Steel Secondary Symbol was never Registered. Anybody could use the symbol.

DM

The Hostile Takeover of Corporate Identity

On Jun.07.2007 at 03:17 AM
Andrew J Klein’s comment is:

I think it's not good or bad. It is exactly what it is.

It made me go "holy crap, what?" - and I now know the Olympic games are being held in London in 2012, and so do all of us on this forum and everyone that's read the numerous stories about the logo.

It does not graphically represent the existing visual culture of London, but I think thats a good thing - It represents (or at least I assume it does) the spirit and energy, not the style

It's very unexpected

It's different

It's started conversation abou the Olympic games...that are 5 years away

Who cares what it looks like? - if it does all that, I would consider it a sucess.

On Jun.07.2007 at 09:39 AM
AL’s comment is:

Can anyone see what I see:

? :)

On Jun.07.2007 at 10:14 AM
greg’s comment is:

rock-em sock-em robots at the olympics? maybe it's really an homage to a great 70s toy?

On Jun.07.2007 at 11:03 AM
chris ’s comment is:

This logo has no strength what so ever. As designers, we look to do work that isn't shocking, but is true to itself, sometimes this yields more shocking results depending on the designer. At first glance, this logo is obviously a work of too many corporate hands in the designer’s pot. Looking at the design company's website, however, I don't know if they could have come up with anything better than this anyway.

It really makes me cringe to see that some people are starting to consider this as "good" design. This makes the job so much harder for the rest of us. This type of bad design creates a public misconception of what good design actually is.

I feel sorry for everyone involved with this. I hope that someone along the line realizes that the shock and the talk wear off, and that years from now, the jokes and ridicule surrounding this horrible image (that will bring a black mark against the London Olympics) will remain.

On Jun.07.2007 at 11:42 AM
Ken Gray’s comment is:

A readers' poll on the BBC news site has voted for their favourite submitted design and I must admit it's pretty good.

Your favourite alternative logo

On Jun.07.2007 at 11:46 AM
nick’s comment is:

what the logo does, as any truly contemporary work does, is hold a mirror up to the culture it was created within. the vehemently negative responses to the logo clearly reflect a closed-minded, unimaginative public, who balks at anything out of the mainstream and who cannot tolerate imagery that doesn't "LOOK LIKE SOMETHING". the instantaneous response that the logo "looks like someone doing a sex act" shows that the general public is STILL made uneasy by the concept of abstraction and cannot engage with something unless it "LOOKS LIKE _____" (insert a banal, generic and symetrical something here.)

the architectural community has been forever changed by the likes of frank gehry, zaha hadid and daniel libeskind -- with their "decontructivist" (or whatever -ism, with which they are now associated) work, and their buildings are still disliked by the majority of a public who cannot get past the fact that there are no fluted columns or dentil mouldings. "good god! it doesn't look like the pantheon... it can't be a good building!"

i'm disappointed that cultrually we are not more sophisticated. while not suggesting that we ignore issues like this (the debate's passionate rhetoric has been fascinating), i wish the dialogue were more than the low-brow school-yard diatribes that have flooded the blogs since the unveiling. whining that "it just sucks" is not a statement with any value and fails to help the debate.

On Jun.07.2007 at 11:59 AM
szkat’s comment is:

one of the BBC logos:

is this really better? honestly?

or how about this:
Another absolute waste of time, money and resources. My fourth graders have the ability to far surpass this mess. And they will do it for free!

it demeans all of us and what we do to say "my child can do this." NO, THEY CAN'T. all these BBC people are validated by being on the site, with comments like "Waseem Ilyas said it took him 30 minutes playing around with some graphics to create his Olympic logo." great. good for him.

this makes me livid. the reason we need to constantly justify our profession, our rates, the need for design is present in this controversy. i'm not saying we should accept the logo blindly, but it's kind of BS the way we're sitting back and laughing about it.

you think your fourth graders can do better? let's see you prove it.

On Jun.07.2007 at 12:31 PM
nick’s comment is:

thank you for that vile depiction of exactly the point i was trying to make.

On Jun.07.2007 at 12:44 PM
fatknuckle’s comment is:

Felix, you had to go there didn't you?

But what bothers me the most is the overall generic-ness of it. It could be New York, Brazil anywhere really. At the very least the mark should embody on its surface at least a little character of the host country, albeit it in symbol, color or statement.

I also find it difficult to understand the current desire to make bullshit the new black, successful marks are expressive at first glance and then the accompanying release adds a deeper understanding of the process or intent. In this case the release is used solely to define the what (the mark itself) rather than the why.

For instance in Pentagram's Saks rework. While the mark itself wasn't necessarily anything groundbreaking in my opinion, it was serviceable and well executed. Then, when they put it into context through their statement I began to understand it and began to relate and understand it on an entirely different level. While still not ideal to me I could at least respect where they were coming from. This mark, and press release on the other hand I find it hard to do.

On Jun.07.2007 at 12:45 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:

DM,

Have you ever heard of the term 'Humor Defuser'? Your informative post defused my attempt at humor. At least I learned something though.

You should write a book called 'Logo Archeology' you dig up a lot of interesting information.

All you'd need to do is copy/paste from past threads and you'd probably have 3/4 of the content.

Sarcasm tags are copyright © 2007 Glitschka Studios BTW.

On Jun.07.2007 at 12:55 PM
gerard’s comment is:

It's wonderful to see to a collective group of design minds protest on if this entire campaign and identity systems works or not.

I personally believe that it works, but not in the modernist's vision. We should be aware that we exist in this unique time of design. Today is where minimalist designers clash with and/or work with ornamental and experimental designers.

Designers are constantly pushed to do more unconventional thinking. Pushed to be nothing like the next guy, but holds true to its conceptual thinking and quality in form. But where do these influences and ideas initiate, but from else where? [*think about that.]

This new system for London's 2012 Olympic will not be loved nor respected by many designers because it does not represent the unwritten rules and visual language on how logos communicates. Just after reading a few entries, it is definite that many have pointed out the faultiness of the campaign rather than why was this chosen.

This campaign was not only approved by one sole individual. This campaign is assured to have gone through many yays and nays, and to see it represent the Olympics makes me proud. If it lacked anything and was thought to be a failure in its initial stages, I might just have to congratulate Mr. Bullshitter and ask for his rates. I seriously feel that this innovative way of forming the Olympics is cool, fun, energetic, inviting and of course unconventional.

On Jun.07.2007 at 01:06 PM
Frank’s comment is:

Nick,

i think you miss the fact that this is supposed to be a LOGO, not ART.

A logo is not art.It serves a defined purpose.

If it was art, it might be great, but it's a logo and it fails as such.

It fails because it doesn't address the main portion of the target audience, it fails because it doesn't convey what the event is about, its values and so on.

This is not about "how it looks", it's about failing to FUNCTION as a LOGO.Not art.

And the reasoning (not by you) that it's a good logo because it makes people talk about it and in that way "promotes" it or it's good because it polarizes is pretty weak in my opinion.

Because it's pretty obvious that *of course* now it causes controvery as it's just been released; but in a few months, let alone 2 or 3 years there won't be as much controversial talk about it as there is now.But the logo will still be there in it's non-functioning nonglory.

In other words: Just because something stirrs up controvery doesn't automatically equal it's a good thing.

On Jun.07.2007 at 01:11 PM
Frank’s comment is:

Follow up:

David Armano has written a very good explanation why the logo doesn't work:

http://darmano.typepad.com/logic_emotion/2007/06/london_2012_wha_1.html

On Jun.07.2007 at 02:15 PM
Gunnar Swanson’s comment is:

I’ll squeeze in before the 250th post by copying my comments on Design Observer. Don’t bother reading this on both sites. It’s not going to change.

Much of the commentary about this program has been impressively stupid. Whether claims of epileptic fits triggered by one brief bit of an animation prove to be true or not, labeling the logo itself a health risk based on those claims is just plain sensationalist bullshit.

What is really depressing about online logo shout downs in general and this one in particular is how a bunch of graphic designers choose to discuss graphic design. The assumption seems to be that a logo should be a precious little piece of art (make that Art) suitable for framing. It should be a tribute to the cleverness and good taste of the graphic designer.

Designers who treat a trademark project in that manner do a great disservice to their clients. The conversations largely focus on personal aesthetic response to the logo itself rather than the sort of visual system creation tool it might be. Hasn’t everyone had the experience of working with a lovely trademark that got in the way of producing good, communicative design or a toad of a trademark that seemed to ask for a great design system? A trademark is a tool, not an object of veneration.

I hope that someone in the design process argued strongly for doing away with a singular event mark. The utility of having one file to send to tchotchke licensees might win out in such a discussion but marks often get in the way of serious discussion of design and designing.

The Olympics that London 2012 seems to evoke most is Los Angeles 1984. Although Bob Runyan’s “stars in motion” was used prominently (along with Univers), it is Sussman-Prejza’s colors and banners that were the 1984 Games. It didn’t matter that the mark and the venue design seemed to come from different planets rather than just different parts of western L.A. because the mark didn’t really matter. If Deborah had put together a variable system for the identity program as well as for other graphic design, nobody would have missed a logo.

So forget any personal urges you have to design a cool little thing that you can have embroidered on a cap and enameled on a pin and proudly claim authorship of. Imagine that you are a trusted advisor of both the International Olympic Committee and the organizing committee for any one particular Olympics:

1) What are the implications of one consistent visual identity across all games? What does that do to the spirit of the host city, to promotion of that particular Olympic Games, and to people’s desire to participate in the spectacle and to go to a particular place?

2) What would serve them best for a particular Olympics’ identity—something that surprised people on first viewing or something that made them say “Yes. That’s what I would have chosen.”

It is worth noting that many of us disliked Sussman-Prejza’s pastels at first and that pretty much everyone liked them by June of 1984.

Speaking of 1984, does anybody remember (or care about) Sam the Eagle? When are we going to see a cartoon bulldog wearing a Beefeater hat for London 2012?

On Jun.07.2007 at 02:36 PM
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:

In response to your comments (1 and 2) on the Atlanta Olympic project. (posted June 5, 11:37 pm)

1. "Landor was hired by the ACOG marketing director, whose previous résumé consisted primarily of Junior League volunteer work who heard someone say that Landor did good logos. No one else got a chance to present."

This sounds like an over simplified urban myth to me, in 1991 Landor was internationally regarded as a leading brand consultant and having worked with Coca-Cola, hardly a stranger to the Atlanta. Anyone who has been involved in developing business would suspect far more was involved than a casual reference to a firm doing "good logos". I have no idea how the project was won but we worked directly with Billy Paine.

2. "The rest of us in Atlanta, however, had a lot to say. As a community as a whole, we were dissed. And the one we believed was most screwed, was Brad, who had long been a hero. The insult brought the design community together and was the foundation for the very strong AIGA chapter here."

All of us can imagine the pain and frustration losing a project of this imporance. I had the opportunity to present on Green Design at the 1993 AIGA National Conference in Miami. I couldn't resist attending a breakout session led by a group of Atlanta designers whose sole purpose seemed to be to lament the loss of the 1996 Olympic logo project to Landor. For 30 minutes I struggled to keep quiet but finally my hand shot up.

I found the contention that it was impossible for an outsider to understand Atlanta ludicrous. I pointed out the team I directed at Landor was composed of designers from across the country in addition to several from Europe and Asia. During this period Copeland was developing a bid package for Turkey. I asked if, as you claim, an internationally acclaimed firm like Landor isn't able to understand Atlanta, how can Copeland understand Turkey? It is hard to have it both ways.

I felt then and feel now that having some distance and objectivity are more useful in visual identity than being mired in sea of details.

As they say:

No one knows who discovered water but we can be sure it wasn't a fish.

On Jun.07.2007 at 02:44 PM
art chantry’s comment is:

in response to designmaven's comments from a looooong way back:

the problem with ALL of the olympic logos since the montreal winter olympics (which was the first olympic event logo where designers were allowed to actually attach graphics of their own design to the official olympic rings) is that since then, all of the logos are little more that decorative framing for the rings logo. there are no solutions that work against that logo wiithout clashing conceptually and degrading it's impact. it has all become decoration and not design. this is a criminal design act in my estimation. it is immoral and simply designers pushing their flimsy egos around to make as much money as they can scam.

the simple and exquisitly proper solution is to deny designers access to the rings logo as a design element of their icky faddish ideas. the rings logo has stood the test of time and has come to mean many many things beyond their initial concept and use. it's become iconographic. therefore, use that alone and to hell with designers icky faddish little brackets and icky faddish little illustrations and crap. no more of it. use the rings. why fix it if it ain't broke? ya know what i mean, vern?

step outside of the design culture and really look at the problem from an outside persepctive. why does a logo need a logo attached to it? why? answer me, little man!

On Jun.07.2007 at 02:58 PM
Gunnar Swanson’s comment is:

Art,

Maybe some of the answer can be found in the answer to my question #1, two posts above yours.

Gunnar

ps: Maven is 6' 7" so is only called “little man” by his friends in the NBA. Maybe that’s not true. Hard to know since his striped red shirts cause epileptic fits so nobody remembers seeing him.

On Jun.07.2007 at 03:07 PM
Leila Singleton’s comment is:

I don't feel it's worthwhile to discuss how ugly this logo is (though I can't resist a parenthetical statement about how much I loathe that broken "2"). Ugliness vs. beauty is obviously a subjective valuation, and it would be wrong to allow such a discussion to masquerade as objective or academic.

I think the more valuable discussion is about how the mark addresses marketing objectives. The press release states:

"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."

Reading that bit, the strategy behind the logo becomes obvious: they are trying to make the Olympics cool. And no wonder: the 2006 Winter Olympics in Torino bombed (at least in Canada and the US), with ratings faltering against — brace yourself — American Idol and Dancing With The Stars. Nielsen showed that the 18-49 demographic was severely down, and the ratings were the lowest since '92's games in Albertville. And who could ignore the scores of empty seats at so many of the events?

Enter a logo that will infuse the Olympics with distinctiveness and excitement in one fell swoop…right? I have my doubts. The design is so self-consciously, exaggeratedly trendy and "textbook youthful" that it feels contrived and, therefore, not hip at all. It's a bit in the vein of affixing the word "cool" to everything aimed at young people — it is so overt that it has quite the opposite effect. It actually reminds me of the day one of my elementary school teachers came to school wearing Hammer Pants (back when they were in fashion) — unlike the cool kids in my class who sported them, he was little more than uncool wrapped in trendy, made even more uncool by the juxtaposition.

I suspect the Olympics are going to look a lot like my teacher when they slip into their 2012 MC Logo. To use the adjectives offered up by the press release, it's dynamic in all the right ways, modern in all the right ways, flexible in all the right ways…hell, it's even controversial in all the right ways! But perhaps that relegates the mark only to design fame (or infamy)? Until I see people on the street sporting 2012-branded apparel and cell phone wallpaper — or flocking to Olympic events in record numbers, which is the truest test — I remain unconvinced by London's Olympic mark.

Did I mention it's ugly?

On Jun.07.2007 at 06:25 PM
Barb’s comment is:

I can't believe no one has referenced the Vancouver 2010 logo. The innukshuk it is based on is a communication method Inuit use in the far north -- rocks are stacked on top of each other to reference geographic places in the desolate Arctic. Vancouver is several thousand kilometres south of the Arctic, and is home to several First Nations groups that have stunningly beautiful art. Why their art wasn't chosen and a pile of rocks was I will never know. The accompanying literature with the 2010 logo explained the references, the symbolism and the meaning and for a brief moment I got it. Then I didn't and I still don't. It is culturally misappropriated and isn't attractive -- I won't be buying a t-shirt.

But the London 2012 logo looks like a morph of the rocks used in the 2010 logo. Like the innukshuk fell down.

On Jun.07.2007 at 06:32 PM
art chantry’s comment is:

the "little man" comment refers to those two old drunks who argued years beyond the end of their arguement that became famous underground tape recording superstars. they are generally referred to as "shut up, little man" and is an hilarious listen if you ever find them. my comment was meant as inside humor for you ultrahip design creatures who are so tapped in to underground culture from about 15 years ago - sort of like the guys who designed that awful "really cool for about 2 weeks about fifteen years ago" olympic logo.

what? 6'7"??? do they call you "tiny"?

On Jun.07.2007 at 07:20 PM
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:

Barb,

Thanks for introducing another related Olympic icon, Vancouver 2010 .

The stacking of rocks to make cairns is a universal activity practiced by many cultures over thousands of years. See this site for more information:

http://rock-on-rock-on.com/community.html

The Vancouver 2010 logo has a concept representing an activity that requires balance and dexterity. The logo is representational of the human form and the cairn is used in way finding.

I agree that the Innuukshuk reference is off by some distance but it is light years closer to a successful symbol than London 2012.

On Jun.07.2007 at 07:24 PM
ed mckim’s comment is:

leave it to a man of the cloth to straighten things up.

On Jun.07.2007 at 08:07 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:

Art:

Many thanks for your invaluable insight into the Olympic Games Identity Design, past, present and future.

Here's an image I'm sure will bring a smile to everybodies face. Nobody has embellished the Olympic Rings better.



Vonster:

Ooopppsss!!!!!!!

Didn't mean to Rain on your Parade (wink).

BTW, Armin and Byrony own all the text on Speak Up I've written over the last five years and Brand New.
I couldn't write a book and use the text on either site if I wanted to.

Arm and Byrony literally own Me. Pun intended.
The made me who I am today.

For your edification. The USS Steel Identity with Secondary Steel Identity from 1958.




DM

The Hostile Takeover of Corporate Identity

On Jun.08.2007 at 07:23 PM
Jrew’s comment is:

What about Nationalism? The logo has no sense whatsoever. Read this: http://www.jimmyco.com/display.php?codename=London2012

On Jun.08.2007 at 10:29 PM
G-money’s comment is:

The emperor's new clothes. Let's call it for what it is: ugly, clumsy, and forgettable. What a load of rubbish. This is the kind of work that makes designers look bad.

On Jun.09.2007 at 01:23 PM
ed mckim’s comment is:

no, the ignorance, closemindedness, and arrogance displayed in the many identity conversations like these amongst many graphic designers is what makes designers look bad.

On Jun.09.2007 at 04:02 PM
jamal’s comment is:

Sign the petition to change the olympic logo

On Jun.09.2007 at 10:19 PM
diane witman’s comment is:

Von,
You can read about the inspiration of the Coudal logo here on their website. It has nothing to do with Pittsburgh, Steel or football.

Scroll down towards the bottom of the page and read "Inspiration on the Floor"

On Jun.10.2007 at 12:49 PM
Joe Moran’s comment is:

A thought from Michael Johnson.

VR/

On Jun.10.2007 at 02:34 PM
Jimmy Valentine’s comment is:

some brilliant discussion here about the Plus and Minus of the logo, but when it comes down to it, the general public hate it, and have they ever hated something so much to do with a logo?
but what do you expect from the british?
Absolute toss and it was served up in spades.

On Jun.10.2007 at 11:17 PM
micahellis’s comment is:

You can call people arrogant, close minded and ignorant all you want but the fact of the matter is that good design should speak for itself. It comes down to good communication. This piece fails in that respect.

On Jun.11.2007 at 10:14 AM
+c’s comment is:

This logo fails in all its ways, let's break it down.

The powerful, modern emblem symbolises the dynamic Olympic spirit and its inspirational ability to reach out to people all over the world.

No it's not, you dont even know what the word modern stands for. Shows no spirit at all, it sure reached people,

London 2012 will be Everyone’s Games, everyone’s 2012. This is the vision at the very heart of our brand. It will define the venues we build and the Games we hold and act as a reminder of our promise to use the Olympic spirit to inspire everyone and reach out to young people around the world.

Again, does not reach people, this thing causes seizures!

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.

How is it flexible? Who wrote this? By changing it's color thats not flexible. A logo isint meant to be flexible but usable.

No longer relate to static logos? How can you say something is not static when it is? Youre trying to tell me you can make a business card animate? Awsome, by the way the world is flat.

This has nothing to do with technology.

On Jun.11.2007 at 12:42 PM
Mike’s comment is:

Love Love Love. Best Olympic graphic system since LA and Mexico. Leave it to London to rip it up Tops!!! Bright, energetic, colorful, positive, new, fun, everything it should be!

On Jun.11.2007 at 03:17 PM
art chantry’s comment is:

ya know, i've been staring at the logo for along time now, and guess what!?! i decided i like it! i really like it!

it's just soo..... well.... cool looking, ya know?

On Jun.11.2007 at 04:41 PM
Mark’s comment is:

I don't know about about the rest of you, but to me whenever I see the Olympic Games version of the logo my eyes go directly to the area where the Olympic rings are, I find this odd because that hasn't happened to me with the previous Olympic logos.

Whenever I see the Paralympics version I lose all interest in the logo and it just looks worthless and junky to me.

When I look a the plain version with nothing inside the logo it looks very dull and boring.

Hmmmm, the quality of this logo doesn't carry through all the three versions, which means somethings not working.

I find myself strangely more and more attracted to the previous London candidate logo now.

On Jun.12.2007 at 01:25 AM
Mark’s comment is:

I don't know about about the rest of you, but to me whenever I see the Olympic Games version of the logo my eyes go directly to the area where the Olympic rings are, I find this odd because that hasn't happened to me with the previous Olympic logos.

Whenever I see the Paralympics version I lose all interest in the logo and it just looks worthless and junky to me.

When I look a the plain version with nothing inside the logo it looks very dull and boring.

Hmmmm, the quality of this logo doesn't carry through all the three versions, which means somethings not working.

I find myself strangely more and more attracted to the previous London candidate logo now.

On Jun.12.2007 at 01:27 AM
Vancouver 2010’s comment is:

On Jun.12.2007 at 03:03 AM
Greg Scraper’s comment is:

I think this logo's a little like coffee. Your first taste? Bitter. Nasty. But ever so slightly you start to enjoy it, finding a way for it to suit you with cream, sugar, etc. Say what you want, but the logo is infinitely suitable, you can throw whatever marks or colors you want onto those broad, flat, canvas-like numbers.

I actually think that's where the mark both fails and succeeds, that despite its controversy, it's too generic. But maybe generic is what they want, not to make it the London Games but in fact the World Olympics. I guarantee, though, that most everyone will love this logo in five years, as long as the olympic committee doesn't wither in the face of public outcry. It just needs a little sugar.

On Jun.12.2007 at 11:29 AM
Lindon Leader’s comment is:

To Jerry Kuyper's comment about the pink actually being magenta. I was a design director for the LA '84 Games where magenta was the cornerstone color of the "Festive Federalism" palette. Magenta is the color most susceptible to ultraviolet fading. It is comparatively unstable in an external environment and we saw it degrade on much of the longer-term LA venue signage such as street banners. We also had to deal with magenta with FedEx. The heavy amount of magenta pigment required to make FedEx Purple meant the color turned to a ghastly milky lavender in relatively short order. Wolff Olins should know better.

On Jun.12.2007 at 01:53 PM
Chad Murphy’s comment is:

So is it cool to pretend that something that is really ugly is somehow really awesome? I hear a lot of "designers" making comments as though they are in opposite land. Must be the in thing to do... "Wow, this is so ugly it's pretty." The current London 2012 logo sucks. This one is far better:

On Jun.13.2007 at 12:56 AM
Jack Hernandez’s comment is:

I can't believe the City of London wasted $800,000 on this logo, when they should donate that money into graphic design schools.

Maybe $800,000 was the cost- the PR manager charged- to make this a media stunt-

I BELIEVE who ever organizes the OLYMPICS SHOULD start a contest - cause i could have done something better in Paintbrush for half that money heheheh


www.sonidoalterno.com

On Jun.13.2007 at 01:12 PM
Jack Hernandez’s comment is:

I can't believe the City of London wasted $800,000 on this logo, when they should donate that money into graphic design schools.

Maybe $800,000 was the cost- the PR manager charged- to make this a media stunt-

I BELIEVE who ever organizes the OLYMPICS SHOULD start a contest - cause i could have done something better in Paintbrush for half that money heheheh


www.sonidoalterno.com

On Jun.13.2007 at 01:12 PM
Jack Hernandez’s comment is:

I can't believe the City of London wasted $800,000 on this logo, when they should donate that money into graphic design schools.

Maybe $800,000 was the cost- the PR manager charged- to make this a media stunt-

I BELIEVE who ever organizes the OLYMPICS SHOULD start a contest - cause i could have done something better in Paintbrush for half that money heheheh


www.sonidoalterno.com

On Jun.13.2007 at 01:12 PM
Jack Hernandez’s comment is:

I can't believe the City of London wasted $800,000 on this logo, when they should donate that money into graphic design schools.

Maybe $800,000 was the cost- the PR manager charged- to make this a media stunt-

I BELIEVE who ever organizes the OLYMPICS SHOULD start a contest - cause i could have done something better in Paintbrush for half that money heheheh


www.sonidoalterno.com

On Jun.13.2007 at 01:12 PM
Jack’s comment is:

PUBLICITY STUNT DEFINED!

publicity stunt is a planned event designed to attract the public's attention to the promoters or their causes. Publicity stunts can be professionally organised or set up by amateurs

On Jun.13.2007 at 01:16 PM
Ben Kessler’s comment is:

Two words wrecked this logo for me: Lisa Simpson. Once this resemblance to the cartoon character engaged in a sex act was pointed out to me, I became incapable of equating the logo with anything other than animated kiddie porn.

On Jun.13.2007 at 05:09 PM
Joe Moran’s comment is:

Forgot you could put pictures up here: One Olympics, similar logos.

VR/

On Jun.13.2007 at 08:09 PM
Alison’s comment is:

It's a grower for sure. I always loved the concept and the functional versatility of the logo. It's interactive, changeable, ugliest blank canvas I've ever seen. I hated the static logo, but now I actually kind of want the t-shirt. I'm putty in your hands, Wolff Olins. I still think the actual logo image could have been truer and more inspired. It does come across as being contrived to me, and I don't know if that will change. However, already it's so iconoclastic. That's worth paying for on its own. I certainly think it will outperform previous Olympic brands. There's a submission on betterlondonlogo.com that I like, as a more modern graffiti sample.

That's what I don't understand, why do something so period to represent the future? Why not something that will look fresh and modern today and in five years, rather than something that looks 80's every day of the week?

On Jun.15.2007 at 02:07 PM
Mark’s comment is:

The powerful, modern emblem symbolises the dynamic Olympic spirit and its inspirational ability to reach out to people all over the world.

London 2012 will be Everyone’s Games, everyone’s 2012. This is the vision at the very heart of our brand. It will define the venues we build and the Games we hold and act as a reminder of our promise to use the Olympic spirit to inspire everyone and reach out to young people around the world.

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.

Why not bring back an old favorite?

http://hub.tv-ark.org.uk/images/bbc1national/1981/bbc1olympics1984.jpg

it fits the description.

On Jun.17.2007 at 04:38 PM
Mark’s comment is:

Why not bring back an old favorite?

http://hub.tv-ark.org.uk/images/bbc1national/1981/bbc1olympics1984.jpg

On Jun.17.2007 at 04:45 PM
Vancouver 2010’s comment is:

I can't believe some designers - whom one would assume should know something about design - are still defending this piece of crap logo. It's sheer arrogance on their part to assume the non-designing public, and indeed, their fellow designers are incapable of discerning what is and what isn't a complete eyesore and a total waste of money.

From Coudal: "The bright colors and distinctive design definitely DO stand out and it's immediately recognizable."

Yes, it's immediately recognizable. Shit usually is, and yet we do unwittingly step in it from time to time.

"It avoids all the go-to pratfalls of current logo design. No brushstrokes! No feathered drop shadows! No mirrored reflections! No gradients, patriotic colors, rainbows, ribbons, landmarks, symbols of unity, maps, swooshes or globes!"

I propose the entire logo is a series of unfortunate brushstrokes. And there is a drop shadow, granted, it's not feathered, but it's there and it only accentuates the mess on top.

"It's reproducible."

Um. That's just about the stupidest argument I've heard yet.

"It's flexible."

ie: It comes in several hiddeous colours.

"It's the basis for a graphic system."

Yeah, it's gonna look just swell as a gigantic 3D eyesore, or worse (as suggested), a uniform.

and I could go on... but the fact is, this logo, this "system" is just plain bad design. It's also not art and nor should it be compared as such. However, having said that, I do wish someone like Banksy had been commissioned to produce it, because then maybe the debate would be focused on other issues such as how the Olympics, as an institution, displaces and disenfranchises thousands of the poorest citizens of every city that hosts it.

On Jun.19.2007 at 03:55 PM
norman’s comment is:

hate it, double hate it and thrice hate it!

On Jun.20.2007 at 08:11 AM
John Washington’s comment is:

I've stewed on this logo for a while now, and I still feel that the design is innapropriate for the occassion.

At the end of the day it will function as expected as an identity, but so would any mark if it is given the exposuer that the olympics receives.

In 20 years time will I be craving the designs like I crave Otl Aicher's Munich Olympics design work - most certainly not.

Wolf Ollins have created some memorable brand identities for sure, but I truly believe that this is not their best.

On Jun.21.2007 at 03:41 PM
John Washington’s comment is:

I've stewed on this logo for a while now, and I still feel that the design is innapropriate for the occassion.

At the end of the day it will function as expected as an identity, but so would any mark if it is given the exposuer that the olympics receives.

In 20 years time will I be craving the designs like I crave Otl Aicher's Munich Olympics design work - most certainly not.

Wolf Ollins have created some memorable brand identities for sure, but I truly believe that this is not their best.

On Jun.21.2007 at 03:42 PM
todd’s comment is:

please, this kind of day-glo new wave vomit sucked at the '84 olympics and it sucks, regurgitated for 2012. i'm not talking about the '84 logo, but rather the signage and environmental graphics... they were virtually three-dimensional versions of the 2012 animated crap. and does anyone else think it's an odd coincidence that sebastian coe, the london 2012 organising committee chief, won gold at the 1980 and 1984 olympics?

"Aren’t trends supposed to circle back around every 30 years?"

um, no. recycling, appropriating, or wholesale ripping off past styles to this extent is a crutch and a cop out. how can such a mark or program represent modernity, as claimed by olympic committee president jacque rogge, when it so clearly borrows it's soul from the 80's?

and enough of this "well it pissed people off so it must work" garbage. is this really how we judge effectiveness or success? bad is good? *yawn* can we please move on from this nonsense? that kind of "get people pissed off so they'll talk about us" logic is why we have to endure crap like the zwinky campaign.

it's self-defeating. if it's good because it's bad then anything will work because at that point it's not about the design but about the bulls*** you spin around it. and of course if you bludgeon people over the head with it enough times, as i'm sure will happen, it will be a success. but the real question is not whether it will work, but whether it does it in the positive or negative and how that ultimately reflects on the 2012 games.

"yea, it worked 'cause we pissed everyone off! f***ing brilliant!"

how old are we?

On Jun.22.2007 at 12:53 PM
todd’s comment is:

please, this kind of day-glo new wave vomit sucked at the '84 olympics and it sucks, regurgitated for 2012. i'm not talking about the '84 logo, but rather the signage and environmental graphics... they were virtually three-dimensional versions of the 2012 animated crap. and does anyone else think it's an odd coincidence that sebastian coe, the london 2012 organising committee chief, won gold at the 1980 and 1984 olympics?

"Aren’t trends supposed to circle back around every 30 years?"

um, no. recycling, appropriating, or wholesale ripping off past styles to this extent is a crutch and a cop out. how can such a mark or program represent modernity, as claimed by olympic committee president jacque rogge, when it so clearly borrows it's soul from the 80's?

and enough of this "well it pissed people off so it must work" garbage. is this really how we judge effectiveness or success? bad is good? *yawn* can we please move on from this nonsense? that kind of "get people pissed off so they'll talk about us" logic is why we have to endure crap like the zwinky campaign.

if bad is good then any mark would work, because at that point it's success has less to do with the design than the bulls*** that's spun around it. and of course if you bludgeon people over the head with it enough times, as i'm sure will happen, it will be a success. but the real question is not whether it will work, but whether it does it in the positive or negative and how that ultimately reflects on the 2012 games.

"yea, it worked 'cause we pissed everyone off! f***ing brilliant!"

how old are we?

On Jun.22.2007 at 01:16 PM
todd’s comment is:

damn, sorry about the double post.

but since i'm posting again i'd just like to add one more thing. after going through the various rant videos on youtube i have to say that what i am assuming were the alternate designs blow even worse!

DEATH TO THE GENERIC CALLIGRAPHIC BRUSH STROKE SCHOOL OF DESIGN!

On Jun.22.2007 at 02:12 PM
Mark’s comment is:

I'm surprised they didn't think about incorporating the Underground symbol, says London and England all over it

http://www.geocities.com/tubeprune/Underground-Symbol-Small.gif

They could've done a "destination London" type of thing for the Olympic games, oh well lost opportunity.

I still see a person of some sort in this new logo though here let me show you.

http://img181.imageshack.us/my.php?image=london2012logounofficiakk4.png

I also notice that the arm looks like it's lifiting weights, the head looks like it's from the angle of bicycling,the left leg is from maybe pole vaulting, and the right is maybe the strectching segment before running I guess?

Just a few observations.

On Jun.24.2007 at 01:33 AM
Mark’s comment is:

The more and more I think about it I believe that the "2012" numbers looking like an athlete is definitely NOT accidental placement, I mean the way the elements are placed they end up making up a shape that alludes to an athlete in the Olympics.

Is that not supposed to be inspiring, isn't that what they're message in their idea that they said?

If this was another touristy Olympic logo like in the past would it be any better? I'm not saying you should like the logo, I'm asking would it be any better if it was like any other Olympic logos in the past.

Yes or No?

Would it be more meaningful Yes or No?

Am I wrong or does it seem to me the majority of Olympic event logos (including future ones) seem to be empty of meaning, this one to me is appearing more meaningful once I look at it more deeply and closer up.

No, I'm not on crack I'm just investing the aspects a little bit more further rather than regurgitating what other people have said.

On Jun.24.2007 at 01:51 AM
Pari’s comment is:

Maybe I'm a bit of a traditionalist, but Im not particularly thrilled with the logo. The applications on web and video are great, and the vibrancy sure does come across. But the logo as a whole is too chunky, conflicting, and disturbing as a collection of forms. The negative spaces are godawful. It looks like a blocky bunch of shapes that dont look like anything independently, and neither do they look aesthetic together.

If dynamism and activity were to be communicated, are there NO other aesthetically pleasing ways of doing it? Or maybe its just a matter of personal opinion and time.

On Jun.25.2007 at 04:56 AM
Frank’s comment is:

Wolff Olins responds, sort of:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nlogo117.xml

On Jun.25.2007 at 09:05 AM
avisualperson’s comment is:

check this link:

how they did it

On Jun.26.2007 at 11:42 AM
wtlh’s comment is:

If one has to look at it for a long time or be given a detailed explaination before having a chance to "understand" the inner meanings of what this logo has to represent, then I would say it has failed.

I thought the whole aim of the London logo was to engage everyone (yes, that includes the general public) - not only art critics in the design bussiness. At the first glance (which is what matters), this logo gave no message except the feeling of eyes hurting with that "excellent" combination of pink of yellow + jagged hard edges.

Bottom line: if the logo is too "deep" and cannot be appreciated by people who did not attend art schools then it fails is purpose. Artists' "educated" views are irrelevant here.

Its purpose is not to be a piece of "modern art" and displayed in
some corner of musuem for a few enlightened ones to appreciate, but is to be used to represent the public in a public event.

On Jul.01.2007 at 03:39 PM
Dan’s comment is:

The only thing that will demonstrate whether this logo is successful or not is TIME.

In some ways, it's pointless wasting your time moaning and bellyaching about it on here. Even more of a waste of time is to submit some god-awful 'knocked up in 5 minutes' tourism-style logo to a website to show how you can 'knock up something better in 5 minutes'. Well guess what - it isn't better. And it shows that you knocked it up in 5 minutes.

Now stop whinging and get on with some bloody work. They're not going to change it, and anyone who thinks they will because of some poxy petition is a mad and deluded fool.

On Jul.03.2007 at 03:49 PM
Brian’s comment is:

Well said wtlh!

My thoughts exactly. A fundamental design problem is not solved with this mark: Who's it for? I hope the answer wasn't "an intellectual crossection of design and art critics". John Q. Public wants to be inspired by the Olympics, and the logo that embodies it should do the same. This mark, on its face appears chaotic and dysfunctional.

On Jul.03.2007 at 04:31 PM
Pedro’s comment is:

The logo is like a bad accident painful, upsetting and cant keep my eyes off it....bottom line, it sucks

On Jul.03.2007 at 07:05 PM
Jonathan Salem Baskin’s comment is:

I'm convinced it was all a brilliant plot to get us engaged in the Olympics nearly 5 years out! Controversy is a legitimate marketing tool, and the organizers certainly broke through the media clutter (I can't remember the last time I witnessed public attention, let alone debate, about an Olympic logo, if ever). The design was so stunningly bad that it just HAD to be purposeful...and maybe the organizers have a brillient strategy behind it all...

...I've written that business case at Dim Bulb, http://dimbulb.typepad.com. What were it only true...

On Jul.05.2007 at 03:27 PM
John Washington’s comment is:

I too think that the logo should have reflected the significance of London as a venue, and primarily should have been inspired by perhaps selecting one of numerous iconic images of our capital and then setting about a serious examination (not just a 5 minute I can do better logo) of how that image could be manipulated, abstracted or otherwise altered to represent what the games stands for both nationally and internationaly.

In addition, I may be wrong on this and I might change my mind, but does anyone else remember that fateful day when we were all glued to the TV and jumped for joy when that envelope was opened to reveal London as the winner.

I can remember that my excitement was short lived when later that day London was rocked with those terrible terrorist attacks on Londons transport systems leaving many citizens of varying nationalities and creeds without a future.

So, out of respect for the victims of those murders I had hoped that the designers might have looked at that issue and produced a historic design that in some way conveyed the values of hope, defiance, tolerance and peace.

It's not too late - Wolf Ollins - if you read this - get on with it.

On Jul.09.2007 at 01:15 AM
nobu.nyc’s comment is:

I see Australia. Is the game in Australia?


On Jul.17.2007 at 03:29 AM
RP’s comment is:

Those whacky Brits have gone and done it. They've actually come up with a design that makes the AT&T logo look good! I guess it was bound to happen sooner or later. Just didn't think it would happen in my lifetime

On Jul.17.2007 at 04:50 PM
Mia’s comment is:

Stupid nu rave piece of trendoid design crap cooked up by a skinny jeans, early nineties revival smiley face tshirt wearing shoreditch prat. it's this kind of thing that puts my teeth on edge whenever i have to tell people i am a 'designer'. i

On Jul.18.2007 at 07:39 AM
Salient’s comment is:

just wanted to respond to Nick -- if this logo is a 'reflection of our times' then i can only feel despair at the thought of how painfully unaesthetic, jargon-laden [cf. the unbelievably trite blurb accompanying the design], fluorescent-lit, artificial, concrete our times must be.
ps. i suspect the designer of subtly integrating the symbol of the labour party -- the rose -- into the ensemble, thus guaranteeing himself the approval of the powers that be.

On Aug.05.2007 at 04:15 PM
despair’s comment is:

just wanted to respond to Nick -- if this logo is a 'reflection of our times' then i can only feel despair at the thought of how painfully unaesthetic, jargon-laden [cf. the unbelievably trite blurb accompanying the design], fluorescent-lit, artificial, and bluntly concrete our times must be.
ps. i suspect the designer of subtly integrating the symbol of the labour party -- the rose -- into the ensemble, thus guaranteeing himself the approval of the powers that be.

On Aug.05.2007 at 04:17 PM
Roxy’s comment is:

Let's take our hats off and remember the 2006 Turin,Italy Winter Olympics logo...a reflection of good design.

On Aug.06.2007 at 09:31 AM
Roxy’s comment is:

Let's take our hats off and remember the 2006 Turin,Italy Winter Olympics logo...a reflection of good design.

On Aug.06.2007 at 09:31 AM
Roxy’s comment is:

Let's take our hats off and remember the 2006 Turin, Italy Winter Olympics logo...a reflection of good design.

On Aug.06.2007 at 09:32 AM
John "the King" Charles’s comment is:

The Recipe for making the London Olympic logo
Take a bunch of overpaid talentless asswipes.
Take four square paving stones toss the twats on the floor.
Grab yourself a lump hammer and smash the ---kin shit out of them.
Pick up the four largest fragments and then toss all in a large pot of lurid ---kin pink paint,set aside let dry.
When dry pick up in a pile and toss all paving fragments randomly on floor.
Get your untrained Jack Russell to piss on the sides of all the fragments to create a nice yellow edging to fragments.
Ohh and one last step......Pay the ---kin twats $800,000 ---kin bucks to make this ---kin shite!

On Aug.08.2007 at 10:24 AM
John "the King" Charles’s comment is:

The Recipe for making the London Olympic logo
Take a bunch of overpaid talentless asswipes.
Take four square paving stones toss the twats on the floor.
Grab yourself a lump hammer and smash the ---kin shit out of them.
Pick up the four largest fragments and then toss all in a large pot of lurid ---kin pink paint,set aside let dry.
When dry pick up in a pile and toss all paving fragments randomly on floor.
Get your untrained Jack Russell to piss on the sides of all the fragments to create a nice yellow edging to fragments.
Ohh and one last step......Pay the ---kin twats $800,000 ---kin bucks to make this ---kin shite!

On Aug.08.2007 at 10:26 AM
Greg Salmela’s comment is:

For me, the logo is memorable due to its seemingly amateurish execution...

On Aug.08.2007 at 04:49 PM
Rick’s comment is:

Visit the link above to see an animation suggesting how a £400,000 logo might get created.

On Aug.15.2007 at 01:31 PM
Mark Notermann’s comment is:

Rick,

Your animation was fun to watch, thanks. Rather than poking fun of the process, I think you are taking part in the viral campaign—and showing the stickiness and durability of the logo.

Well done!

On Aug.15.2007 at 06:12 PM
Arfrid Wang’s comment is:

it is very good for discuss it this is a game ,yes ,a whold world game !

On Aug.25.2007 at 08:02 AM
Cade’s comment is:

This logo hurts me.

I hate it, and it certainly isn't clear. I never picked up on the fact that it is the numbers "2012" until I read about it. This is after having sat and looked at it for several minutes.

As a guy in my 20s, it does not reach or interest me. As a graphic designer, it makes my stomach turn.

Here's my official opinion.

On Nov.13.2007 at 07:28 PM
GH’s comment is:

You are all so mad. Really, really mad.

Calm down, Designers aren't supposed to care about sports. Personally, it's about time someone made a logo for the olympics that doesn't look like a two-second brush stroke figure skater, or some equally crappy "emotive" gestural form. Who cares if your grandma can read it. Bunch of grumpy old men commenting from pure butt-hurtedness.

On Jan.26.2008 at 04:49 PM
miles’s comment is:

The first consultancy based attempt to kidnap the ideology of anarchy and return it as a licensed asset.

On Feb.20.2008 at 09:23 AM
MC’s comment is:

What is it, what does it say? Its a puzzle in pieces, unable to interlock and become a united team working together. So does it say that its a puzzle how we got the Olympic games, and does it say its a puzzle how we are going to be able to be ready by 2012 (after Wembley!!). Its dis-jointed. Is this why so many hate it.

On Apr.04.2008 at 04:52 PM
Nick’s comment is:

As a trained and experienced graphic and website designer living just outside of London I feel ashamed of this as a finished brand identity being anywhere in the marketplace.

It is a ludicrous amount of money spent on a such an inept unreadable design for such a high profile global event. The final decision makers must have had their eyes closed when choosing this design. Come on Sir Seb do us a favour.

I'm just glad I dont live in London and have to see this child's cartoon logo everywhere I go. I feel for the people of London.

How can you feel proud of having the games in London with such a dire figurehead of a brand. Its hard enough to get many people's enthusiasm already without adding insult to injury.

I say keep pushing for something better even now it has been finalised. The BBC website had a number of great alternatives at the end of last year. As mayor of London I think Ken should have an opinion on this too and help get it changed before 2012 - its not too late.

Sack the design company NOW and get a better "readable alternative" - The olympic games are for everybody, not just Cartoon Enthusiasts.

A deflated designer

On Apr.23.2008 at 08:08 AM
Jane Alexander’s comment is:

I think Sebastian Coe , Brendan Foster , David Bedford , Steve Cram , Daley Thompson and those from the generation of Steve Prefontaine and the other great athletes of the past will do London and Britain proud. I just bought myself some pearl necklaces from CrimeaJewel.com , and this summer I am wearing these to lots of the big sporting events around the capital.If you can't beat them, shine and out glitter them.............Jane.

On May.11.2008 at 03:11 PM
andrew’s comment is:

The logo's fucking shitttttttttttttttttt! £400000 when i heard that figure i was like it cost the price of a decent house to produce that shit! Whats Britain coming to, when did the people higher up become sooo stupid because that logo shows they've got more money than sense!!!!!!!!!

Imagine how talented drawers and designers feel, i'd be insulted, you could have got kids in secondary schools who are gifted at art to design a better logo for free!

The shit i do in my toliet looks better than that logo, plus it doesn't cost £400000 to produce! After all thats my opinion lol :D

On May.31.2008 at 03:45 PM
Pesky’s comment is:

Backing up a bit, I like Chad Murphy's London Olympic logo. Simple and smart. As for the one to be used, well, no use losing sleep over it. It'll be gone eventually.

On Jun.02.2008 at 09:30 AM
jman03’s comment is:

I think it's terrible! And I'm American! I mean, it's too dissonant; there's no flow to it. He wants to convey a dynamic feeling? When I hear the word "dynamic" I think of curved, swift lines. Something soothing, and smooth. Not this jagged abomination! I'm sorry, I believe that there are better uses for 400,000, than producing this empty logo. I can only hope they decide to change it before 2012. My sincerest condolences, England.

On Aug.08.2008 at 01:24 PM
Graphis’s comment is:

I love it, because you hate it.

On Oct.20.2008 at 09:45 PM
Maria’s comment is:

Hi there
I just like to make a comment referring to a statement made earlier on this thread, regarding Waseem Ilyas' design.
It has to be said that "Szkat" seems to be rather diluded when it comes to creativity. The fact that you have to go onto a public site and slag off someone's creativity is pretty pathetic. I mean, why dont you better use that time to work on a design? So that you dont have to go justify your profession, 'coz the way I see it if I asked you to make a design for me and I knew you spent your time worrying about that, then I probably would ring up Waseem Ilyas and ask him to make a graphic for me, coz he's pretty damn good.

And just so you know - the olympics are meamt to involve the entire country, this is just one aspect of it - so take a chill pill dude.

On Mar.25.2009 at 04:03 PM