So what do YOU reckon?
This logo was designed for London's Olympic bid in 2012 and launched in London during the early days of June 2007. If you've seen it, continue reading, if not, have a good look at it before forging ahead into this post.
The company responsible for the design is Wolff Olins - www.wolffolins.com - who claim to be "the world's most influential brand business". They are BEEG players in the design world (globally) and have an exceptionally high pedigree of work including Orange, Tate and Renault. I'll leave you to explore their website in your own time. (And when I find the time again, I'll post something on Orange - which is a fascinating case study in itself, but I digress...)
The emblem, which will be available in pink (is this a fairly obvious attempt to be completely PC, I wonder?), blue, green and orange, is supposed to answer the awfully simple brief of "raising awareness of both itself (the logo) and the Games".
At first glance it looks like something a 12 year-old doodled in his notebook during a maths class. It also seems, well, rather ugly, but having said this, what I can't stop wondering is how on earth a company like this designed something like that. Were they smoking their socks, did the client design this in his notebook during his maths class OR, are we all just being a little short-sighted and afraid of the new, the different or even the future itself?
Having had these questions floating around in my brain archives since June you can imagine my absolute delight when I recently stumpled (quite literally, but that's another story) across an article that claims to "tune out the noise and examine the arguments for and against the London logo". The point I'm hoping to make by sharing this with you is that if we really believe that something we have done actually does the job properly, we should stand by the strength of our own conviction. Alternatively, that we should not allow our clients to do our jobs, and finally because like it or not, the fact that it even exists raises some interesting questions about the future of our business.
And so, I share with you the following snippets from the latest copy of Creative Review.
The positives (yes, I was also surprised!):
- The Shock of the New. Anything that is genuinely orginal is met with almost universal condemnation at the outset.
- The Only Thing Worse Than Being Talked About. If the primary task of this logo is to raise awareness of the Games then it's done its job. If you ask just about anyone in London, they would have seen the logo which is not something you could say about most logo's that are a mere 2 months old.
- IT'S #%$!ing EXPENSIVE. The client paid the princely sum of 400 000 GBP's for the logo (folks, that's 5.6 million SAR). This means that we can charge clients at least 2 bar for a corporate id and once they've picked themselves off the floor, we'll simply cite the London logo as an example!
- It Works Because - it's not boring, it's different, it's reproducible, it's the basis for a graphic design system, it's timeless, it's English, it's simple, it's unexpected.
- It Represents the Birth of the Anti-Logo - (and watch this space for more about anti-branding)
The negatives (prepare yourself!):
- A "puerile mess". It's an inelegant, crude, misconceived and misguided attempt to be down with the kids that opens up worldwide ridicule of the UK design industry.
- It Doesn't Work Because - people hate it, it'll date too quickly, they won't wear it, it's trying to do too much, it's painful, it's ugly
- The Brand Bubble Bursts. Lets face it, we've all been fed quasi-religious mumbo jumbo about the power of brands and the unique insight into their operation possessed by the likes of Wolff Olins. In the face of such spectacular failure, will the message be "cut the @#%!"?
So there you have it, and I hope it's made you think about things a little. If you want to know more, visit this site www.creativereview.co.uk/crblog.
Until the next time, I wish you peace, love and understanding.
Yours in arms,
Peta Ratt
