London 2012 - should we laugh or cry?

I have to smile at all the coverage about London's 2012 Olympic logo. The Metro has broken up all the shapes and made its own pictures out of them. I'm told some TV programme yesterday had viewers sending in their own logos.  According to the BBC, 17,000 people have signed an on line petition to get it scrapped.

Having an aversion to most things sport-related (although I've recently discovered the delights of hanging out with the village cricket team on the odd sunny Saturday afternoon with a glass of pimms in my hand) I can't get too worked up about the logo, but I do wonder about a different question.

On the one hand the powers that be are being hung out to try for throwing £400,000 at a logo everyone (allegedly) hates. Not helped, I have to say, by making the usual kind of lofty and vaguely ridiculous-sounding statements that often get trotted out with new brands and values (no wonder visions & values are such loaded terms, and have to agree with the guys at Open to Everyone that it doesn't exactly cover the comms & marketing industry in glory).

But on the other hand, everyone's talking about it. Loads of media coverage, blog posts and commentary galore, people going to the trouble of signing petitions and designing their own logos. Even total non-sporty-person me is actually writing about the Olympic games! Shock! Horror!

So is the whole 2012 thing instantly off to a horrendous start, with reputations damaged and an agency never about to work again ... or should we be celebrating the fact that people are getting involved and having conversations? Is no publicity bad publicity?

What do you think?

Sue

Comments

[Alex Manchester]

I'm crying Sue, I think the logo is a disaster. By trying to go all "edgy and youthful" and capture a time and feel, they've created the logo equivalent of a 70's tower block that looks dated before it's even launched and will look even worse in five years. And £400k to do it? Simply astounding, but this was commissioned by the same people who forgot they might have to pay tax on the whole shebang, so it's not just believable, but par for the course.

I think the event itself will be good and delivered on time (it simply has to be) but all the peripheral stuff like this logo will blight the overall project.

[Liam]

Isn't criticisng new logos and brandings an olympic sport yet? It should be although anyone can enter so perhaps it lacks the essential elitism for an olympic event.

The rules are quite simple...
1) Someone hires a design consultancy (at the top levels of the sport the consultancy has to be staffed by really clever, but pretentious types)
2) They unveil a logo (to make the event easier it's essential that the logo should be a a bit modern - especially for a traditional brand or organisation) and accompany it with a speech about values and brand pillars...
3) They also say how much the design cost (at the higher levels of the sport the logo sum should be relatively low, making criticism slightly harder...)

Hey Presto, let the games begin...

Liam

[James Brown]

Have to agree with Alex, it looks terrible. An average level graphic designer could knock you up something far better in a couple of hours.

If the debate it sparked was in any way intentional, it'd be good... but it wasn't, it's grabbed attention just by being really bad.

[Lee Smith]

I hate the logo. It reminds me of the clothes I used to wear around 1984 (yes, I did the peach socks, the pink jacket with padded shoulders, and the highlights).

It's got even worse today - apparently the logo video has caused a handful of people to have epileptic fits. No laughing matter. And Ken has waded in to say the designers shouldn't be paid.

All in all it's an Olympic disaster.

[Liam]

"It reminds me of the clothes I used to wear around 1984 (yes, I did the peach socks, the pink jacket with padded shoulders, and the highlights)"

I heard that you still did...or is that secret?

Liam