logo

now i am the first to admit i was not keen on the olympics coming to london, and it was only when it came down to a fight between london and paris that i decided that maybe it would be a good thing for it to be held in the capital.
in a karmic like way i have had to suffer for this moment of xenophobia as the olympic village means being turfed out of our offices and that means no job for me.
if losing your job wasn’t enough to make you want to hate the olympics then there are all the voices of doom that have gone on about it (i exempt myself as the voices of doom was one of the main reasons i didn’t want it, i know i know circuitous reasoning but there you go), but the main reason not to like the olympics is the unctuous face of the ex tory seb coe. oh sure he has won olympic gold but that doesn’t forgive him being a conservative and a pal of william hague.

but the olympics are coming to london and there is a chance it might just do some lasting good in the very deprived areas of east london. so there you go: bonus.

just as i am warming to the whole idea of the olympics being in london they launch the logo. well. now i am not so sure.

one of the more interesting things about the olympics and logos is that of course the who thing is fiercely policed because they do not want the various sponsors being short changed by any tom dick and kebab shop using words like “olympic” “gold medal” “2012” etc to promote themselves on the back of the work that the olympic movement has done in general and what the london olympic committee will do specifically to promote 2012.

coe, blair and everyone involved with this unveiling the logo talked about the brand (though at one point when coe was going on about we “don’t do bland, this isn’t a bland city” i thought he was taking the piss out of the japanese…) so what is a brand? well it is marketing speak. say no more you say. hell i say lets talk about brands very quickly. at its simplest it is an image or a logo. basically a brand does several things it sets you apart from your competitors (think nike’s swoosh as opposed to adidas’ three stripes), it should encompass some, if not all of the core values of the company, and it makes a promise to the consumer about what they are going to get (think coke and pepsi, think orange and vodaphone).
in short it is about perception. it is about what the company thinks it is about and what the consumer thinks it is about – these may not fall into alignment (think macdonalds).

you only have to look at the much maligned conservative party’s “squiggle tree” to see how it can work. the tree can be seen as being strong, it can be seen as representing growth, it can be seen as having roots, it can appeal to the country folk as well as those in the city, the branches can be seen as encompassing and protecting all, while also being individual. add to this it can imply alternative, green and environmental issues. lo and behold you have something more than just an expensive squiggle (such a shame the strength aspect is been shown to be a bit of a myth as cameron has given in on the question of grammar schools).

lets return to the london 2012 olympic logo, (if i must…)




what is it? well looking at it there are several things it can be. the obvious one is a stylised “2012” (with an extra bit). (which is what it is.)
then it could be that it “spells” london, the bit in the middle is an “o” while the top line is “l” and “n” and the bottom line is “d” and “n” (true the “n”s are different and yes i am grasping…)
it could be a very stylised version of the london map with the segments being boroughs.
it could also be a stylised version of the olympic rings.

actually what it is: is shit.

this is made worse because it cost £400,000 and it took a year to design. there is a lot of guff about how it has to work on many levels and how it has to convey a lot of information. if you accept that it is “2012” then the information is pretty straightforward and not exactly hard to convey.

go to the london 2012 website and you can discover exactly is implied by the logo/brand. the games are for the young. the games are for everyone. the games will inspire. it is dynamic, flexible and modern.
seb coe
says ““london 2012 is inspired by you and it’s for all of you…. let yourself be inspired to do something amazing…a games for the next generation.”

blair, jowell, livingstone and coe all talk about how the brand will inspire and how it will motivate. they make the point that the brand is aimed at the “brand savvy” youth, who are not interested in static logos (yup nike sales will drop now…) (and we know this is aimed at the youth because it has a graffiti like look to it – though it is rare that graffiti looks quite so angular, but then what do i know?) in all of this the olympic spirit has been lost. it isn’t about sport; it isn’t about participation it is just about the brand logo.

while the public doesn’t like the brand logo, the sponsors love it because it can adapt it to their own needs. see the lloyds tsb add where the second 2 carries their message. apparently coke will be adapting it to their colours and their distinctive logo. so that is all right then.
it appears that the real message is: we want to keep the sponsors happy – the rest of you just accept the bullshit.