London 2012 Olympic Logo

[Jan]

Come on people. Same thing every time with a big sports event. I remember the discussion about the 2006 world cup logo (football/soccer) in Germany. OK, it sucked. But. 11 designers stated they could do better. Well, actually most of them couldn’t ImO. Come up with something better!

[munsonbh]

Same thing every time with a big sports event.

Sure there are some bad tourney logos out there, but it's the Summer Olympics! Home of amazing posters (Montréal), beautiful ID systems (Los Angeles) and this great little piece of iconography from Moscow. It's in Russian and more readable to me than the London caveman mark.

Horton
Founder, This Day in Type

[Jan]

Yeah. It looks Stalin OK. And if it hadn’t been the Soviet Union then there would have been the same discussion going on. Posters and ID systems aren’t Logos btw. Design a Logo for the London Olympics and post it!

[1985]

Role over Wolff Olins.
Shame on you.

'This is the vision at the very heart of our brand'

PASS ME THE STAKE

(I will not be revoking this comment)

[munsonbh]

Oi, Jan. I have a solid rebuttal to everything you wrote, but it won't do either of us any good. The only thing I would like to point out for the record is that ID systems include logos.

Horton
Founder, This Day in Type

[dyana]

From the press release: "the new emblem is modern and will be dynamic, evolving in the years between now and 2012."

This makes me think there is more to the logo than we've seen. Could be interesting.

I don't think it's too horrible, aside from the fact I originally thought it was the red maple from the Canadian flag. Most of the alternatives on the BBC site were much worse (#1 could be great with a few touch-ups - 11 is fantastic, of course). Probably a product of design by committee. I can see scores of Olympics organizers weighing in with what they think is good design, the designers being pressured to comply, and the end result being an unsatisfying compromise for everyone.

[timd]

What is the purpose of a logo?

Tim

[timd]

>logo should be a dynamic, forward thinking summing up of London and its hosting of the Olympic games

– is that possible?
– is that desirable?

I am still on the fence about the logo, although it does make better sense having seen the motion graphics.

Tim

BTW Darrel – you probably already knew this but
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/british/images/vc265.jpg

[belleisle]

Update for non-UK readers...

BBC TV news ran a piece hinting that the organisers are looking at a few tweaks.
In other words they are going to try and dig themselves out of a very large hole and change the thing?.

Someone mentioned Childrens TV. This was a logo for 'TISWAS' a Saturday morning kids TV show in the 70's.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6719805.stm

[sayerhs]

gah! i say..who on earth designed it? and how in the name of heaven did they pass it off as a logo for the olympic games??!
Things like this cause a lot of disillusion in me.

:(
shreyas

[belleisle]

Wolff Olins produced the logo/brand.

http://www.wolff-olins.com/

[tomhowe]

So, what typeface is being used and what do we all know about it?

[Duckworth]

Well, I posted a comment that was pretty damning of the London 2012 logo - and, although I could edit it, I'm going to let it stand even though I think I've made a mistake. Having lastnight seen how it conveys a sense of energy, I'm growing to like it! My gut feelings (see post above) were negative, but I really don't think companies such as Wolff Ollins get it wrong. I'm still really unsure of the supporting elements (the animated visual style is very 80s dance graphics), but I think the logo is already doing its job. I think the organisers will be pleased about the press and news prominience this has got - which I don't think would happen with a 'safe' logo which would likely go unnoticed. It's really going to start mattering in a few years time so to judge it now is really premature. The one thing that this logo is, is different - and that's pretty important.

[aluminum]

I'm surprised at the almost unanimous hatred towards this mark.

Admittedely, from a typography standpoint, it's lacking, but as an overal logo and part of the larger ID system (including the motion graphics) I can't really argue against it. It seems to work.

There are bad logos, and then there are controversial logos. I think this is the latter. Not necessarily bad, but those that find it bad, REALLY find it bad and are quite loud about it.

A bland logo would have likely been a poorer solution, but ultimately would probably not have provoked that many folks to care as much about it.

"The one thing that this logo is, is different - and that’s pretty important."

Well said.

[William Berkson]

This interesting Washington Post article on the logo reports a huge negative reaction in Britain to the logo.

Does being polarizing help in some way? I don't really know. I just can't imagine that having a majority of people instantly hate it was a goal. In that respect, at least, it has fallen short.

[seventy7]

I actually really like the logo. It has an interesting energy. And I'm so glad it stayed away from cliché iconography like the Tube, Big Ben and the London Eye.

I'm sceptical about all this logo-hating. I believe we have a case of group-think happening. It's popular to dislike the logo and nobody wants to be unpopular.

Are there any blogs defending the logo?

[seventy7]

Found one.

But the author admittedly doesn't like the logo.

[sch2525]

A local public access kids' show produced in Boston:

[William Berkson]

Good things about the logo:

Dynamic, energetic, upbeat, good balance--artistically very well executed.

Harmonizes with appealing and successful motion graphics. (It works as part of these better than on its own.)

Bad things:

Second 2 illegible. Serious problem.

Too self-conscious--draws attention to itself rather than the Olympic games.

Cut out + candy colors gives too child-like message for Olympic games (see Scott's post).

Trying too hard to be 'trendy' and just missing.

[edit:] In sum, for the purpose of promoting the Olympic Games, disconcertingly inappropriate, off-key, a sour note. Hence the reaction.

[1985]

Again, in the cold light of day I still find it utterly objectionable.

[pattyfab]

I think it's hideous - I didn't read the 2012 at all. It looks like a sad older woman who's trying way too hard to look like she's still one of the kids.

But I don't think this is a case of logo-bashing. It's rare for these design-by-committee processes to actually yield anything with a lot of design integrity. There have been threads in praise of logos on this forum plenty of times, or threads where the opinion is more balanced.

I can't get the Lisa Simpson visual out of my mind... ouch.

Is the Moscow logo trying to imply that Muscovites have 5 testicles instead of the customary 2?

[pattyfab]

Besides, you really can't top this for SUPERCOOL Olympic graphics

http://www.okscg.org.yu/i119e.htm

My parents have an ashtray from that Olympics, and if they ever throw it away I will be forced to kill them.

[bruno_maag]

We've just released our opinion on our website, plus our visual take on it: http://www.daltonmaag.com/news/61.html

Bruno Maag

[seventy7]

Patty:
I am mostly referring to the masses. I'm not surprised to see typographers and graphic designers spouting harsh critiques. We're an opinionated bunch and the logo is at first jarring. I agree completely with your design-by-committee comment. Very true.

I just believe there's an inherent danger in "unveiling" a new design. In doing so the logo is put on display, almost requesting a reaction. With this design being so unexpected, people will stick to their first impressions. I think that unveling the logo without the support of context and additional branding elements (motion graphics, systems, photogrpahy) makes it bound to not quite connect with people.

And then there's the culture issue. Londoners are certianly arguing over what cultural element is missing from the logo. This is why committees often ruin the design process. "We can't agree, so let's just use little abstract woodcut-style people holding hands in a circle."

[ChuckGroth]

Dalton Maag makes some very good points, and some very over the top ones.

In my opinion, the logo falls short because it doesn't communicate WELL, and it's unfortunate only because of the missed opportunity.

D-M hit it when they said that by trying to be trendy, Wolff Ollins (and the committee) trapped themselves into being dated. And by 2012, well, I imagine the designers will be thinking, "it SEEMED like a good idea..."

Goofy type treatments can be effective (Taco Bell got away with using Fajita for years), but they should be communicative.

But D-M's assertion that the Olympic logo will destroy British design credibility throughout the visually-literate world is a silly overstatement. And in the end, I think the public is going to worry a lot more about the 50-m sprint time than they will about four tangram shapes and some weak typography.