If you've been following the controversy over the 2012 Olympics logo, you'll see a familiar pattern.
Many new logos, and brand names even, seem odd and --as Londoners complain-- say nothing about them.
I have a strong opinion about this one. I think it's not very inspiring. Vibrant, yes. But hey, I don't live in London, and it's easy to be critical when you're not privy to the brief or the marketing context.
But beyond branding issues, it's turning out to be a PR nightmare --with the organizers seeming to not want to listen to the protests.
I like the fact that they are now at least asking people to create and submit a logo design.
They welcome user generated content, with 'downloadable 'templates' backed up by a huge section on the use of and removal of content. Yes, they will moderate comments, they say!
In defense of the edgy (or odd) logo, it appears to be in sync with their objectives:
- "London 2012 will be a Games that make the most of exciting new technology to get people closer to the action.."
- "The new emblem is dynamic, modern and flexible. It will work with new technology and across traditional and new media networks."
As for what will happen when a logo isn't working in isolation and has more context, this is how ordinary people are adapting it, and sending it off, not to the IOC site, but to Flickr.
And for a hilarious look at what might be taking place at Wolff Olins, the brand consultancy that came up with the logo, click here.
Recent Comments