Fascinating conversations going on about the London Olympics 2012 logo. It looks on the face of it like a complete muck-up, certainly in terms of how the new logo was presented. How very 1990s!
'Wally' Olins described it as "a powerful brand taking its place in a brand-savvy world." The trouble is that the world is much more brand savvy than the Brand Consultants behind the logo.
Could the whole logo farrago be a turning point in brand-public relations?
Johnnie Moore's excellent post shows the dangers of a PR firm trying to be leaders in social media but revealing themselves to be party to "a bit of Marketing 1.0 nonsense".
The tone of the launch reminded me of those 90s TV adverts for Phileas Fogg crisps with Geoffrey Palmer's VO, "Pay attention! Crunchy golden chips made from sun-ripened corn, delicately flavoured with cheese and spices. Made in Medomsley Road, Consett".
At least the last part was factual.
Did the Olympic Committee and their PR advisers seriously think that the British public would agree that the logo "would … inspire everyone and reach out to young people around the world"?
In what way exactly does the logo represent inclusiveness? Other than in the fact that everyone seems to hate it? Or maybe, to hate the way it has been presented to us.
Around our office opinions are divided. Some see it as brave and radical, especially when they worked out the jigsaw shapes spelled out 2012. Others find it gratuitous and vaguely grotesque, a minority (of one) could not get past the now notorious visual reference to Lisa Simpson.
Our contribution to the debate is to remind you of previous Olympic logos. They look very conventional by comparison with 2012, don't they?
Then there's this poster from the London Olympics in 1908 - a bit of a favourite, here. See more posters here.
So, where has 100 years of the branding business got us all?
i think with a logo like this, you have to ask: where were the planners?
100 years of branding has told us brands fill a role for consumers and provide an identity/community to be associated with.
Lisa Simpson lovers will adopt this in a heartbeat. Graphic designers may enjoy its simplicity and angles. The Olympic Committee must see something in it too.
My question is, what does it mean to the Olympians that exist (should have gotten some insight there) and to the athletes that want to be a part of this legendary event?
nothing about the logo says legendary or heritage or competition. maybe 2012 will be more jazzed up; like sit back watch some people run around, listen to smooth jazz and enjoy raising awareness for breast cancer with our fabulous new fuschia color.
Posted by: Erin | June 08, 2007 at 07:20 PM
I have seen the fuschia - and it's pink
Posted by: james | June 08, 2007 at 09:20 PM
good points, Erin
they are basic questions, aren't they? what do the various stakeholders have to say about the logo that represents their event (our event)?
were the stakeholders consulted?
and yes, where are the planners when you need them?
and if the strategy is inclusiveness and if Britain won the bid on the basis of the (inspired) idea of invoking children in the UK and all over the world ... who owns the logo?
or did the Brand Consultants say 'we know best', like the latterday medieval alchemists they are?
Posted by: kevin | June 08, 2007 at 10:03 PM