After getting onto this topic before, some of my friends told me to calm down. Brace yourself for an opinion.
I was amused this morning to hear that they had pulled the promotional video that goes alongside the campaign due to reports of induced epileptic shock . I made a similar comment yesterday, the difference was that I joking at the time.
Admittedly good, strong brand design is hard, and sometimes you need to be downright adventurous. A really rule-breaking design thrown in amongst the other designs can be used as leverage with your client to get them to accept something slightly more bold than their conservative attitude might normally allow. However it has dangerous consequences, especially when either the client says they really like the wild one, or when the branding agency gets to absorbed by their own ‘genius’.
I think this is probably a case of the latter.
Eighties rave culture has seen somewhat of a renaissance in the past few months, but this is nowhere near long enough to establish that the trend will continue for much longer (especially five years until the games eventually starts). Also, whereas in youth culture acceptance of something radical is possible, universal sporting events are not a place to flex over-zealous creative muscle.
By their very nature, sports are stalwarts of conservatism and not prone to spontaneous alteration (e.g. rules, the rare admission of new sports, the subtlety in the number of milliseconds between newly broken world records). The Olympic brand needs provide a universal appeal, worldwide, and although attempting to be daring, this one desperately misses the point.
I’m not adverse to seeing something truly innovative, but unfortunately this brand may leave a bitter aftertaste for years to come, a reminder of public spending wastage. White elephants are a speciality of recent UK government; the Olympics has already run three times over budget (VAT, doh!). With �400,000 being spent on a re-brand (a large chunk of which will have been spent on market research) it only goes to show how self-absorbed (and plain wrong) a consultancy can be; a good example of how nobody involved seems to be a good judge of value for money. This is not just my opinion – I’m referring to the hundreds of thousands of complaints and overwhelming public opinion that the design is “a bit crap”.
Although I think popularity around this will grow in the short term, (or indifference will culture) this was a bad decision, too risky, and possibly heading to be the appropriately lasting icon of a publicly-funded financial sieve.
There is a difference between being clever and being abusive with design principles, and the only other rebrands I can remember that garnered such a negative public riposte were when Coca-Cola changed it’s name and when Post Office became Consignia (and guess who was responsible for that). Both lasted five minutes. Interesting to see if this one sticks (it will, at least for a while).
It makes designers look like we don’t know what we’re doing.
Update: I’ve just discovered Wolff Olins (the London 2012 Olympics brand agency) were also responsible for the very short-lived Abbey National rebrand four years ago (you probably won’t even remember it – see above).
Hi Andy. I want to write in a bit more detail about this on my blog, so I will just clarify a few things here.
First. Correction – this is not a re-brand. This is a logo for an Olympic Games – used to promote the event, it’s ideals and to give it an identity amongst previous and future games. (The Games of Mexico in 68 and Munich in 72, stand out and still have relevance today in design circles as they set trends and pushed the boundaries of identity and information design).
The previous logo was that of the bidding process, where it’s competitors were the other candidate cities, and the identity was to promote the city, and it’s ability to host an Olympic games. Those two goals are entirely different, and in this brand centric world (and believe me, I’d be the first to see that not be the case) having such different needs requires a different identity.
Secondly – don’t fall into the trap that seems like Daily Mail territory to me – it cost £400,000. What if it cost half that amount. What if it cost £25,000, would people still be complaining that it cost to much? Of course they would, as it’s a great angle (an all too easy, journalistically lazy angle) on a story. How about an actual intellectually informed critique of the good and bad aspects of this logo, it’s strengths and weaknesses (and there are indeed strengths and weaknesses). Note also how everybody has used the pink and yellow version of the logo, opposed to the more conservative colour options. Why? Because it’s easier to generate a reaction such as yours, and thus sell papers.
Seriously, at £400,000 is not a lot to pay for an identity that will be used for the next 6 years, and for Britain’s most important cultural and sporting event since the 1966 World Cup.
Finally, why should this logo <span class=“caps”>NOT</span> break the mould. Are you telling me that you would like to have seen yet another bland corporate logo – hmm let’s see, Big Ben stylised as an Olympic Torch, or a stylised running man that has the River Thames running through it. Are you saying you would like Britain <span class=“caps”>NOT</span> to show braveness, a willingness to change the game. Afterall, we are a nation famed for great design and designers. And I can tell you now, that the design of future Olympic logos will never be the same again – and I’m glad of that.
Think if the iMac, the Ford Sierra – both designs that were criticised at launch, but then went on to outlive there shelf life as their designs were so popular. People don’t like change, but what is life without it? If a product or identity launches without hundreds of people hating it, then it hasn’t done it’s job (and perhaps, neither has the press).
My issues with this logo are, that whilst it’s braveness and how it breaks new ground in identity design are to be applauded, the fact that the organisers have blatantly stated that this design is indented to appeal to the youth, with the ‘kids’ – jazzy angles and bright colours are just a bit too obvious, a bit like when your dad tries to be cool in front of your friends when you were young; children and teenagers will see straight through it.
Unfortunately, this is the mark of a Wolff Olins identity – whilst strong, they always fall into the obvious category – Orange (the word orange in an orange box), BT (a piper stylised with flashes of the Union Flag) – I could go on. I’m not a massive fan of this agency, and whilst I applaud their braveness, I’m saddened by the obviousness of their outcome.
Further corrections:
Coca-Cola didn’t change it’s name, it changed it’s flavour, and then was reverted a few years later, with the name Coca-Cola Classic to distinguish itself from that whole debacle.
Consignia – the less said about that better, but again, there was a lot in that identity that was to be applauded, and was only intended to be the name for the holding company, <span class=“caps”>NOT</span> the Post Office or any of it’s subsidiaries.
Abbey – that logo changed due to a change of ownership, the parent company had it’s own brand goals (wanting some level of consistency across it’s various brands) so the old logo had to go. Which is a shame as it was a great logo, and again one that broke the mould – I remember it, and with great fondness.
Great post however. I think this comment has just provided the bulk of the post I wanted to make on my site, so thank-you for stirring me to write this response!