'Puerile' Logo Publicity Proves Priceless
For those of you who haven't seen the recently introduced logo for the London Olympic games in 2012, let me describe it for you-imagine a modified swastika chopped into bits, rearranged slightly and colored a bright 80's shade of neon pink and outlined in neon yellow. Then, the five Olympic rings and "London" are barely visible in white.
The London 2012 Web site calls it "dynamic, modern and flexible."
London design guru Stephen Bayley, in an article he wrote for the UK newspaper The Telegraph, calls it "a puerile mess, an artistic flop and a commercial scandal."
I just call it ugly.
The idea was for something fresh and hip that would appeal to young people. The logo comes in four different colors-magenta, teal, green and orange-and actually depicts the number 2012 (but you wouldn't know unless someone told you). While the logo is supposed to be in a graffiti style, some are calling it "stone age" more than anything.
Less than three days went by after the logo unveiling before a complaint was filed by a British health group, Epilepsy Action, that a four-second animation promoting the logo on the London 2012 Web site was triggering epileptic seizures in some Web site visitors. The image was promptly removed from the site. In reaction, organizers emphasized that it was an animation - not the actual logo - that was triggering the fits.
But still.
Seizures cannot be helping the cause to get the support of the British people behind the brand.
And what's more, the logo was expensive. The London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (LOCOG) reportedly spent about $800,000 for the eyesore from Wolff Olins, a brand consulting firm owned by the Omnicom Group.
UK residents are, for the most part, outraged. A petition started merely hours after the unveiling closed nearly 50,000 signatures strong. It requests a new logo and calls the design embarrassing, saying it "portrays our country in the worst possible way." It was submitted to the committee on June 6.
Claire Beale, editor for the weekly advertising magazine Campaign, said in an interview with the UK newspaper The Scotsman that countless calls have been coming into the magazine from appalled professionals around the globe.
"All the calls were to say how awful it is. The main concern was that, while the logo and its references to graffiti might be fashionable now, what is it going to look like in 2012?" she said. "The consensus was it will look pretty tired and old-fashioned by then."
This polarizing effect is only pleasing the organizing committee, which, in response to a largely apathetic population, only wanted to get more people involved in the first place-particularly the nation's youth.
International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge said to the BBC, "This is a truly innovative brand logo that graphically captures the essence of the London 2012 Olympic Games-namely to inspire young people around the world through sport and the Olympic values."
Traditionally, Olympic logos have depicted images of the host city or country. London last hosted the Olympics in 1948, when the logo featured an image of Big Ben with the traditional Olympic rings.
"One thing you can say for sure about this logo is that it has got people talking," said Olympic minister and sports secretary Tessa Jowell in an interview for the UK newspaper The Guardian. "It has got people talking about the Olympics, it has got people talking about what they like and what they don't like."
She's got a point-I bet none of those 50,000 people who signed that petition ever thought they would have such a strong opinion about a logo.
If anything, the hideous design has only sparked conversation and garnered interest in an event that won't happen for another five years. All the free publicity and attention is something that money can't buy (and probably wouldn't want to).
Source: Ashley Green, BYU