I was reading yesterday how the budget for the 2012 London Olympic Games had escalasted to £9.35bn from it?s original budget of £2.4bn declared 2 years ago, and it?s no suprise when you see how money is being spent.
At a reported cost of £400,000, the new logo was unveiled yesterday and frankly it is pretty poor, and appears to be a complete waste of money. I?ve read opinions on the web and also seen reports on the TV and all of them have so far been negative.
The only people who seem to be strongly behind it are, not surprisingly, the people who commisioned it, and the people who designed it.
?It won?t be to be eveybody?s taste immediately but it?s a brand that we genuinely believe can be a hard working brand which builds on pretty much everything we said in Singapore about reaching out and engaging young people, which is where our challenge is over the next five years.? ? Lord Coe
?When people see the new brand, we want them to be inspired to make a positive change in their life.? ? Tony Blair
?This is an iconic brand that sums up what London 2012 is all about ? an inclusive, welcoming and diverse Games that involves the whole country?..This is not just a marketing logo, but a symbol that will become familiar, instantly recognisable and associated with our Games in so many ways during the next five years.? ? Tessa Jowell
Lord Coe has come back and stated that ?it?s not a logo, it?s a brand that will take us forward for the next five years?, so I can only assume that there will be more to come from this design and that it will evolve in some way with the blocks moving around to represent different images. If you squint then maybe you can see what I mean, but should you really have to squint? The Olympics really needs a logo that will stand out and be instantly recognisable from the outset, and I?m sure that many people viewing this for the first time will have no idea what it?s for.
Coe, Jowell, Blair et al know nothing about marketing and branding and it appears to me that they have been guided along by the one idea of being different, hip, streetwise and have focussed on this and become completely sold on the idea and disregarded some of the key and essential features of a logo and brand.
The outcry to this has led to many people coming up with alternative logos in a matter of hours, and some of them are quite impressive I have to admit, whilst some are rubbish, and some are a piss-take. I doubt the IOC will change the logo now, and I do hope that they can make a success of it, but for the moment it will be a constant uphill challenge.
What do you think of it?
“When people see the new brand, we want them to be inspired to make a positive change in their life.†? Tony Blair
Yep, I?ve made a resolution to get my glass eye re-ground after squinting at that for five hours.
It sucks. Hard.
You don?t need any ?funny? alternative logos, this one looks like Lisa Simpson giving head?
Was it designed by the same people who worked on the set in the 80?s?
if a primary school kid designed it as a competition I would be fine with it. the problem is that is 400k of council tax and/or lottery ?donations?.
whats more, corporate sponsors will be less inclined to license the logo, so thats less income again, so more tax..
Saw on the news that when the Logo was shown earlier, 18 people across the country had epileptic siezures ? says it all doesn?t it? ? they charged £400k and didn?t even think about the audience who would have to view it!
More alternative logos by the public have been added to the BBC site and I have to say I like the first one.
I?m not a big fan of the logo either? but those steaming piles on the BBC site are laughable. Every single one. Even the cool black type one with the giant ?2?. Okay? looks cool? but why? What?s the idea? There is no idea. And the rings are not even in there. It makes me think that the Olympics are a Typography Seminar.
p.s. I was referring to this one
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/43009000/jpg/_43009997_simon_hamblett_220.jpg