Yesterday, amidst much publicity, the 2012 Olympic Committee unveiled the new London 2012 brand. The "dynamic" and "vibrant" new emblem is designed to work on both static and dynamic media and is set to "evolve" over the years up to 2012.
Apparently "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. It is an invitation to take part and be involved."
My first reaction to the gaudy disjointed Tangram-like logo was not favourable. I had enjoyed the bid logo with the Olympic ribbons echoing the course of the Thames as they weaved through London. However, I do appreciate that the traditional static logo with a clichéd image of a national icon is no longer enough in these media savvy days. So Wolff Ollins have played a wild card with this brand.
The public hate it. There are already a mass of material on the internet criticising the design. Blogs and news sites alike have loved to take a swipe at the new brand (which, incidentally, cost £400,000 to design).
Now, there is something about the media's response to new branding of quasi-public bodies that drives me mad - you see the same old comments each time the BBC creates a set of new idents. For some reason there is nothing that the press enjoy more than criticising any attempts to rebrand such organisations as the BBC or Royal Mail (remember Consignia?). Now some attempts are indeed a total waste of public money (Consignia) but others are, in my opinion, perfectly justifiable. These public bodies frequently need to compete and appeal as much as any private companies.
There is also something very appealing about not playing it safe. London enjoys an international reputation as a centre for arts and design. It would be sad to see a logo for the Blandsville 2012 Olympics which is perhaps what the public would prefer.
So, what of the new logo? Well, having said all of the above, I still don't like it. It attempts to engage young people by speaking a brand language which it is believed they will recognise. I think what is achieved is the equivalent of your dad dancing at your disco. Aesthetically it jars - now I know that this edgy look is the intended effect - but since it will be reproduced on countless T-shirts and baseball caps, a design more pleasing on the eye would be wiser.
The curious lowercase 'London' is painfully trendy and the Olympic rings sit in the middle of the "0" with little connecting them to the whole design. Sadly, over all I think it is a mess.
What I would love to see is a logo that really satisfies the design brief - a logo that is inclusive and dynamic, that engages young people and excites without alienating those who are actually paying for the Games. So, back to the drawing board guys!
PS. If you shuffle the blocks around you can make a footballer and a loose map of GB!
Apparently "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. It is an invitation to take part and be involved."
My first reaction to the gaudy disjointed Tangram-like logo was not favourable. I had enjoyed the bid logo with the Olympic ribbons echoing the course of the Thames as they weaved through London. However, I do appreciate that the traditional static logo with a clichéd image of a national icon is no longer enough in these media savvy days. So Wolff Ollins have played a wild card with this brand.
The public hate it. There are already a mass of material on the internet criticising the design. Blogs and news sites alike have loved to take a swipe at the new brand (which, incidentally, cost £400,000 to design).
Now, there is something about the media's response to new branding of quasi-public bodies that drives me mad - you see the same old comments each time the BBC creates a set of new idents. For some reason there is nothing that the press enjoy more than criticising any attempts to rebrand such organisations as the BBC or Royal Mail (remember Consignia?). Now some attempts are indeed a total waste of public money (Consignia) but others are, in my opinion, perfectly justifiable. These public bodies frequently need to compete and appeal as much as any private companies.
There is also something very appealing about not playing it safe. London enjoys an international reputation as a centre for arts and design. It would be sad to see a logo for the Blandsville 2012 Olympics which is perhaps what the public would prefer.
So, what of the new logo? Well, having said all of the above, I still don't like it. It attempts to engage young people by speaking a brand language which it is believed they will recognise. I think what is achieved is the equivalent of your dad dancing at your disco. Aesthetically it jars - now I know that this edgy look is the intended effect - but since it will be reproduced on countless T-shirts and baseball caps, a design more pleasing on the eye would be wiser.
The curious lowercase 'London' is painfully trendy and the Olympic rings sit in the middle of the "0" with little connecting them to the whole design. Sadly, over all I think it is a mess.
What I would love to see is a logo that really satisfies the design brief - a logo that is inclusive and dynamic, that engages young people and excites without alienating those who are actually paying for the Games. So, back to the drawing board guys!
PS. If you shuffle the blocks around you can make a footballer and a loose map of GB!
