BenGilman
…blogs about design, branding and doing business.
Branding London 2012
Erm…. it’s taken a while but I’m starting to quite like the London 2012 Olympics brand and logo. Despite my desire to avoid the masses, I was firmly in the “huh” camp when it was revealed in 2007.
With the marketing activity kicking into gear I think the brand is starting to show its strengths. Firstly, the shape is so unmistakable no matter what the fill is. As a designer, that sort of freedom with a logo shape is rare and I think it really works nicely in some contexts.
The use of the logo in corporate sponsor’s marketing materials also works well for me – so well in fact that you get the distinct feeling that that was a major factor in the design process. Either way if that was a requirement, the logo is achieving its aim.
Despite my general softening towards the look and feel, there are still errors out there to be made – this, for example, is a step too far in my opinion:
The explanation goes that this is the first time that the Olympic and Paralympic brands have shared a brand identity – it seems to me that in this case they could actually have fully shared it with the quick addition of the Paralympic Games strapline. For me the extra swirls and hatches have totally compromised the bold simplicity of the lines of the original logo.
So what have we learned?
All of this proves to me that whilst first impressions can only be made once they’re not always correct – I think there’s a new-fangled phrase that beat me to this. Brand development is as much about long-term feeling as it is short-term impact.
But how does that sit with user-testing in brand development? What can you learn from immediate exposure to a logo or a colour scheme? Without the courage to weather an initial storm of criticism, the London 2012 brand may have been a far less adventurous one? A brand that didn’t fairly represent UK design on a global stage maybe.
Comments (4)
Leave a comment
Please try to keep comments civil, constructive and on-topic.
On 5 Nov '08 at 12:20 pm Carl said:
I think overall you have to be brave to tackle brand, generally. I agree there. I guess I question how important brand name and logo really are for smaller companies
On 21 Feb '09 at 12:31 pm bart said:
the only thing that is evident about the 2012 logo is that it looks like lisa simpson is on her knees giving somone a blowjob
On 8 Apr '09 at 4:04 pm Philippe said:
I’m absolutely positive that ‘it’ will never set a trend. I’m also positive about the fact that this will be judged in time as the worst of all Olympic identities. Which can’t be called a quality. It’ll never be paired and hullabaloo in itself is never a goal.
I don’t see any reference to sports nor competition nor togetherness, what Olympics is all about.
But I do see a forced marriage of old school punk and teen age disco probably created in moments of distress by someone in between conflicting periods.
But if ever I should get accustomed to this kind of design I’ll let you know, but don’t wait for it unemployed.
On 24 Feb '10 at 5:57 pm Jase said:
As a freelance graphic designer I know none of my clients would ok that, no matter what I would charge.
I agree with Philippe, this will definitely go down as one of the worth brand identities of all time. Sometimes simplicity is key, this brand must be easily read and understood by all nationalities around the world, and this logo just doesn’t do that.
I am currently watching the Vancouver Winter Olympics and they have designed a man out of stone that works as its the Winter Olympics in touch with the elements, I would have designed the 2012 logo for half the price they paid!