June 4th marked the launch of the new London 2012 Olympic logo and it didn’t take long for the controversy to begin. I’d already fielded a number calls and emails before lunch from friends, designers and even the media. My inbox is filled with emails about the subject from various GDC designers across the country—some even wondering if the whole thing isn’t a hoax. Most hate the logo, claiming it’s too silly, trendy and irrelevant. Others argue that it’s edgy and fresh – sort of a new friendly punk-graffiti take on London’s identity—and will appeal to a more youthful audience. I say we’ll need some time to see how this unusual logo is actually used before history judges it fairly. I’ll certainly be watching with a keen designer’s eye.
I’ll admit that like many of my colleagues, my first impression of the London 2012 logo wasn’t particularly positive. I think I understand what the designers were going for, but the combination of ultra simplified forms, typography and psychedelic colour choices seem less like a “design for the Internet generation” and more of a graphic heavily influenced by recent graphic design trends such as eighties fashion. And if the logo is supposed to represent a stylized character as some have suggested, it’s a bit too obscure for most.
Hating this logo seems a very popular bandwagon to jump onto—some even claiming it could cause epileptic seizures, but I tried to reserve judgment until after doing some reading and watching the videos on their website and after some consideration of how this brand could be applied I started to see some potential in it. Sure, the graphic looks like an eighties videogame icon, but as some have observed, it’s certainly not boring, is very flexible as a solution and contains some interesting dynamism, portraying a brave visual expression of the unique attitude of a vibrant new London. It’s a bold departure from what one would expect of an Olympic logo: a reflection of that city’s cultural heritage or most well-known landmarks combined with the primary colour pallet of the official Olympic logo. But is it an appropriate logo for a city such as London and an event as serious as the Olympics?
I’m uncertain what the contents of the Creative Brief included in terms of strategy, audience and messaging, but I have heard that the design firm of Wolff Olins were hired after a careful selection process—not an open speculative contest—and paid handsomely for their expertise, so one has to assume they were given clear direction from the planning committee. I’m sure many would considered this logo a success if the primary goal was to create an abstract expression of the diversity and individuality of Londoners, unlike some Olympic logos that focus too narrowly on visual language representing a fraction of a city’s population. Is it actually better than the controversial Vancouver 2010 logo? I think so actually. It’s certainly not worse. And it may just grow on all the nay-sayers over time.
In our business you’ll never produce a graphic design solution that everyone will universally approve of, but is the London 2012 logo “good design”? Well, that has yet to be seen perhaps. As with anything executed to be immediately fashionable, it’s questionable whether it will stand the test of time or become a classic. It most certainly won’t be universally hailed as brilliant, but I doubt it will be judged as bollocks in due time. Congratulations Wollf Olins for being so brave.
For more information on the new Lodon 2010 brand, check out their main website, though for a more unbiased look at the reaction to the launch, check out BBC coverage and the reaction on the BBC Sport blog.
Tags: 2012, Articles, Branding, Design, logo, london, olympics
Darren Clarke (June 5th, 2007)
New London 2012 Logo: brilliant or bollocks?
Bollocks.
And they might even belong to Bart…
Zac (June 5th, 2007)
Bollocks
TJ (June 5th, 2007)
Its one bollock
Jon Whipple (June 5th, 2007)
Brilliant. But not because it’s a knockout like Sophia Loren, but because it’s the harbinger of a new way like Marlon Brando. It’s a reconception of what the Olympic Games are and what international sporting events are becoming. There’s more of an analysis at the GDC BC blog
Mark (June 6th, 2007)
This looks absolutely terrible…I’m from Vancouver myself, and I don’t think ours is a great representation of the city, but at least it’s aesthetically pleasing. The London 2012 logo looks like scrunched up pieces of garbage on a sidewalk. I see little reference to ‘london’ or the Olympics, I don’t know what the dot in the middle is supposed to be, and I know for a fact that nobody (in this city anyway) would wear something that bizarre. It doesn’t appeal to young people either – it just looks childish and unprofessional.
Linda R. Smith (June 6th, 2007)
Like WOW, total flashback from the ’80s “mon”…
http://www.denningesolutions.com/80s_logo.html
(closest example I found on google)
BOG ROLL!
Kevin Brome (June 8th, 2007)
The response over at Wolff Olins appears to be optimistic. ;)
Bev (June 8th, 2007)
The stylized numbers (2012) are cleverly designed, IMO, although I’m not crazy about the colours they’ve chosen.
Maybe the colours are to remind us that this is “crazy, cool London”…kind of a throwback to the Twiggy years. It contains all the information one needs and presents each number in it’s slightly off-kilter position with the dot in the centre as the ‘pin’ holding it all together. Not nearly as bad as all the hoopla suggests.
Jrew (June 9th, 2007)
I think the logo sucks, Where is the sense of Nationalism? The only thing english about the logo is the “London” type. Read this, it talks about the logo and its lacks of nationalism
K (June 14th, 2007)
I’ve heard people comment on how it looks like Lisa Simpson (her head with the olympic rings) on here knees doing the nasty.
Siong (June 21st, 2007)
I think it was absolutely terribly done. The highly stylised 2012 cannot even be discerned when blown up. In fact, I could not even tell it was 2012 until I looked at it closer. Also, there are reports that there is not enough contrast between the colours in each of the four versions to accommodate colour-blindness. I really do feel that, with a style this trendy, that it only appeals to a rather specific subculture, which explains the tremendous amount of backlash. This alone, I feel, has alienated the very notion of the Olympic games. It is a nay for me.
However, I have to add that, as a logo, this is certainly a memorable one, albeit one that *might* have sour connotations in the long run. Who knows, it might also be remembered as that subversive one that sparked a whole slew of ideas and renewed the Olympics spirit.
Respiro Media (July 1st, 2007)
New London 2012 Logo: brilliant or bollocks? Bollocks. Unfortunately, not even a cheap one…
Jonathan Salem Baskin (July 5th, 2007)
What if the entire sorry chain of events were part of a thoughtful strategy to engage with consumers…not in some generic, ‘awareness is everything’ Web 2.0 exercise in wasting our time, but a planned campaign with a direction and ultimate purpose (i.e. selling tickets, raising corporate money, driving viewers to the events)?
I’ve written that fantasy business case history at http://dimbulb.typepad.com.
Were it only true…
stu ross (August 10th, 2007)
Brilliant. I can’t remember when an Olympic logo grabbed so much attention. It carves through other “aesthetically pleasing” Olympic IDs. “It surprised me when I first saw it, I hope to be continually surprised. It’ll come alive in execution.
Rick (September 9th, 2007)
Here is my cartoon suggesting how a $800,000 logo might actually get created. Click my name link above and check it out! Please digg if you like it!
Jay (September 15th, 2007)
One thing that really baffles me about this design, is the fact it is just so depressingly retro.
How can a piece that is so firmly rooted in an old style, be remotely considered to be a design that can be considered ‘modern & edgy’?
however – what really really really really REALLY bakes my noodles is that it was most likely done by someone who spent years at a very well known design school, got paid a massive commission for it, where there’s struggling design Pupils across the country who could benefit from the over inflated charges that would be gained in a professional design establishment.
Desktop Publisher = Graphics Designers Monkey (October 18th, 2007)
Bollocks! More like a slanted rip off of never mind the bollocks.
This pseudo Punk, Street London elblem representing the beating vibrant heart of london is a bit off the mark. Maybe it would work for Xgames or a Pistols reuniuon. Maybe even a David Bowie ‘Let’s Dance T-Shirt’
But to use it to represent an ancient greek contest of skill and atheleticism it doesn’t (Unless breakdancing is and olympic sport). I get that it supposed to show our London as a contemporary and dynamic venue for the games.
It looks better when it’s amnimated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJSsRILZpRg
Canada have played safe with the winter olympics, looks a bit like barcelona 92. It may not represent the full demographic, but London hasn’t been full of safety pin wearing rubber clad Carnaby Street dwellers for a long time.
To surmise it’s bollocks!!!
Matt SamyciaWood (October 30th, 2008)
Personally I don’t mind the logo but 50,152 people would disagree. Check out http://www.gopetition.co.uk (change the London 2012 logo). These are heir words:
We, the undersigned, wish to express our concern with the new Olympic logo for the 2012 London Olympics.
The logo is poorly designed at an unacceptable expense.
We therefore ask that the logo be withdrawn and replaced with a more appropriate logo.