Another Olympic 2012 Logo Blog Post (From ages ago)
THIS WAS POSTED ORIGINALLY ON MY OLD WEBSITE ON WEDNESDAY JUNE 13TH 2007, I MANAGED TO DRAG IT OUT OF THIS ARCHIVE - I NOTICED A FAIR FEW REFERRERS FROM THE CR BLOG THAT MAY HAVE BEEN INTERESTED.
By now everyone has got to be sick of this olympic logo business. At first I was as shocked as everyone else - this clunky, garish monstrosity representing our olympics? I was with the view that it was already outdated, and i have to say it reminded me of Saved By the Bell more than anything else. But now that its being harangued by a disgruntled media on all fronts, as well as being the centre of some extensive talk of health risks, I would like to try and defend the new 2012 logo.
(here goes).
Firstly I would like to address the millions of people who argue that the olympic logo should have some kind of reference to london itself within in it. I think that that is possibly the worst way to go about making such a logo - ok, right, its in london, so we’ll put the big ben on it, and maybe the london eye, shove the thames in there too just in case anyone doesn’t quite understand the fact that ITS IN LONDON.
We already know its in london. They already know its in london. Everyone knows its in london. We don’t need to tell anyone that. And suppose we ended up with something like this:
The best design - in my opinion - cuts out all the crap. Take away everything that doesn’t need to be said.
I think the point at which I started to warm to the new logo was when I saw the alternatives proposed by people on youtube and the bbc, and the arrogance with which they were submitted (”this is so crap, look at mine, its way better, and it only took me 5 minutes standing on one leg with both of my hands up my arse”). No. They aren’t good. You’re not big, clever, and you’re not right.
It cost £400,000. Thats a lot of money, and public money at that. But here we’re talking about the whole brand, and the cost of implementing that brand, including how it would work with its surroundings, on posters, billboards, in the street and on new media. I think its worth the money to ensure that its not just a big mess - that there is consistency. Also consider that BT spent something like £8m putting their piper logo into use.
This isn’t just the logo, its the visual language of the whole identity, and as such we have to consider the context it will be used in. Look at the logos for Mexico 68 and Munich 72 - both regarded as design classics:
Both these logos are great not because they say “THIS IS THE OLYMPICS AND IT IS IN MUNICH THIS YEAR” - that is not the emphasis. They are great because they work, and that is the most important thing. I do, however, think that video was a disaster - bad idea poorly executed, but that aside I think that wolf olins have made a strong visual identity that could work really well as an all round visual identity. Picture it as an overall, strong, instantly recognisable brand, in all its contexts. It works.
And besides I quite like the sexual connotations.
SEE ALSO:
Creative Review Blog
Alternative submissions to the BBC
changethelogo.co.uk