A 'shocking' London 2012 logo design
Article on Sky News
Wolff Olins brand consultancy
The brand, designed by Wolff Olins, aims to be a “hardworking” tool that is dynamic, modern and flexible so that it can fit in with new media and technology. It will be used in four colors - pink, blue, green and orange - which are meant to embody four key “brand pillars” of access, participation, stimulation and inspiration. It must also catch the attention of young people, according to London 2012.
So, the official identity for the London 2012 Olympics has been unveiled, and I’m sorry to say it, but I’m hugely disappointed. Especially since the legendary Wolff Olins was behind this.
It seems to me that everyone is jumping on the ‘1980s is back in fashion!’ bandwagon lately. And I mean everyone - fashion designers, cosmetics manufacturers, magazines, web designers, branding legends who should know better. As I’m just old enough to remember the neon-clad gaudiness of the 80s, it pains me to see a slightly-younger generation herald it in again. There were lots of good things about the 80s. Style was not one of them.
And yet, this identity screams 1985 at me like a dodgy set of legwarmers. I love how they’ve tried to be slightly edgy, don’t get me wrong. Not every identity should be polished and shiny and clean. But I think the edginess ran away with them and they ended up with a logo that looks like someone stuck their fingers in the electrical socket. From the committee’s own comment of “It must also catch the attention of young people” I can’t help but feel they will alienate a lot of older people for the sake of making the logo a little bit trendy.
On the plus side, it is instantly recognisable, and there’s no getting away from those neon colours! But does this represent a British Olympics? Britain isn’t gaudy, sharp or neon - and surely the logo design should reflect something of the country hosting the games? There is nothing British, or identifiable, about this logo. I know the Olympics is about coming together, and all nations, and sports etc etc, but the host country generally have something of themselves in the spirit of the design.
Take away the Olympic rings, and there is no indication of it being related to sports at all. Take away the ‘London’ wording and you have no clue where it’s being held. Take away both and the mark curiously looks like it says 20-R, not 2012.
Maybe, as it has with others, it will grow on me. That may be in part due to the fact that every facet of Britain is having the Olympics thrust onto them in some way, and we won’t be able to escape seeing it. It may be that a classy application of the identity balances out this over-the-top mark, and that it ends up working. Maybe.
But more than anything, I think that when 2012 actually arrives, this logo is going to be terribly outdated. (Or maybe Olins are going to push for the 1990s to come back into fashion sometime around then?)
