Update: The Olympic logo debacle is picking up steam. I was reminded that this is the logo that the London team used during presentations to the host city selection committee.
Find out more about the London 2012 Olympics on their web site.
The logo for the 2012 London Olympics was unveiled this week. The jagged emblem, stylized numbers from the year 2012, comes in a series of bright shades of pink, blue, green and orange, and includes the signature five Olympic rings emblazoned onto the "0".Promoters declared it as 'ambitious, interactive and youth-friendly'. Detractors have labelled it as hideous, an embarrassment to England, and a complete waste of money.
There are reports this morning that the video clip to be used to promote the Olympics (looks like streamers and confetti) is so busy that it is causing seizures. Oy vey.
What do you think?
*
7 comments:
"Ugh!"
This has been a hot topic on the marketing blogs I read, with a surprisingly uniform reaction: it's a train wreck. It doesn't leverage the existing, strong Olympics brand at all, the "2012" stylized numbers are so stylized that most people don't eve know that they're there... and it also fails to leverage London's strong brand. So it looks like neither London nor the Olympics.
Oh, and they paid 400,000 pounds (about $800,000) for it.
The big point, I think, is that just making a logo does very little for you: it's the activities that add value to the logo that matter. The Starbucks and Nike logos don't mean something to you because they are amazingly works of design; it's because of the ways that Starbucks and Nike have used them.
So spending that kind of money on any logo is dumb. But if you're going to do it, it should at least not make your eyes hurt.
I never got that it was the numbers 2012 until you just mentioned that the Olympics rings are in the "0". Someone else posted that with a little imagination it looks like a guy on the right on his knees in front of a guy on the left, and that's all I see. Aside from the sexual overtones I see in it, I think the logo as a whole ugly and hideous looking.
pardon my french, but, the logo sucks ass. and not in that warm-fuzzy feeling kinda way. i hope they imprison the people responsible for that crap. maybe they still have time to redo it all. even if it breaks their budget, the money spent to redo the logo would be well worth it.
That has got to be the worst mess to date I have seen the games come up with. Are we really going to have to endure that for the next five years?
Yah, bufugly if you ask me.
The designer of the NIKE logo got 25 bucks (roughly 50 pounds)-- swoosh!
Gavin...
From a design standpoint, I love it. It is very much hip and to the point...uhm at least as to the year of the summer Olympics. Unfortunately, I do agree it fails in promoting some aspect of the country the GAmes are in. That's where London could really lose out on the marketing element and the ability to pay off these Games.
Post a Comment