Brandisaster 2012: The London Olympics

I know enough about branding and the corporate identity process to be pretty dangerous, but it takes a special level of skill to be as dangerous as Wolff Olins, the creators of the logo and brand package of the London 2012 Olympic Games. If you're looking at the second link I posted above, and you're wondering where the logo in question is, look in the middle of the page in the pink area at that blue...thing. Yep, that's it.

Obviously, Wolff Olins and the London Olympic Committee took a sizable risk releasing this as the official logo, and the backlash has been heavy to say the least. Petitions have circulated calling for the redesign of the brand. Articles and discussions are all over the place - here's a search link.

Is this a move of genius, or a disaster in motion? There's always the classic argument that any press is good press, and certainly the new logo is getting plenty of that. Then, there's Coudal Partner's Bryan Bedell, who makes some reasonably solid observations in his article London Broil. Coudal makes ten points in favor of the new logo, such as it's different, it's well thought out for print reproduction, it's simple, it's flexible and a few other points, all of which he details with precision.

So, you want my take on this? Of course you do! :)

I'm solidly with the camp that calls this a disaster, for a few very big reasons.

1. As so many people have pointed out, this is a logo that has to stand the test of time. It has to live for at least another five years. The problem with having so much press generated about this logo now is that by the time the payoff for all of this comes, in 2012, the buzz will be gone, and the games will simply be left with an ugly piece of incoherent crud for a logo. The "all press is good press" strategy is great, if the press is happening at a time that matters. Five years in advance is not that time.

2. Bedell's points are well taken, but realize what he's done in his article is extracted a solid formula for creating a suitable brand. Just because it meets those criteria doesn't mean the execution is good.Here's an example: as a man, if someone were to tell me they wanted to introduce me to a female with long legs, smooth dark skin, great curves and luminous eyes, I would think I was meeting my dreamgirl (full apologies to my wife - this is just an analogy sweetie :) ). I would be in for a nasty shock when I discovered I was going to meet this lady!. My point is that the logo fits Bedell's formula, but that doesn't make it good.

   His formula is missing one criterion: people have to actually enjoy looking at it.

3. Branding 101 tells you that a brand needs to embody the culture, values, objectives, whatnot of the entity it visually depicts. If you look at the brand explanation offered on London2012.com, one gets the impression the logo is meant to mandate the spirit of the games, as opposed to reflecting it. The explanation given on this page gives very little information on how the visuals presented actually relate to the culture of the games. It talks at length about what the games mean, but it makes no association between the...thing...and all of that meaning. No logical leap takes place in the brain. Not even after a full explanation do you look at the logo and say "oh yeah, I can see it now."

Nice try, Wolff Olins. Punt 50 yards (that's a figure of speech for the popular American Football sport) and try again. You have plenty of time - years, in fact. Give them the £400,000 worth of creative work you promised!

I'll end this by quoting my good friend, Martin Ridgway - "1984 called. They want their 'new age punk graffiti' style back."

###

==========[ MORE ABOUT PAUL ]==========
PaulHirsch.com . International Web Developers Network . Web Hosting Talk . Equentity Host