Oh dear.
Never have I seen such a shit-storm blow up in such a short space of time.
The new "brand" for the 2012 Olympics was revealed with a fanfare yesterday in London by Lord Coe and greeted with an overwhelming outpouring of public scorn. It quickly got the nickname of "the pink swastika".
A poll by the BBC News website asked readers to give it a gold,
silver or bronze medal, or a wooden spoon if they really didn't like
it. A whopping 83% gave it the wooden spoon ...
... and in just 24 36 hours an online petition to change the logo gathered 13 862 44 586 signatures!
There are at least 3 valuable lessons from this debacle.
First, it is a mind-bogglingly bad example of mistaking a logo for a brand.
No wonder "branding" gets such a bad reputation, and is so mis-understood, when you have leaders saying things like this classic from Lord Coe in an interview with BBC Five Live:
"It's not a logo, it's a brand that will take us forward for the next five years."
Of course its a bloody logo. Nothing more, nothing less. Lord Coe has unfortunately swallowed whole the flawed terminology used by design, sorry branding, agency Wolf Ollins. They use the term "brand" to describe the logos they design.
If you can use the concept of "brand" to describe the Olympic games, then its to do with creating a memorable and distinctive visitor and athlete experience. This includes things like the design of the stadiums, the transport systems, the opening and closing ceremonies, the hospitality etc. etc. It should be about a brand-led business, or in this case experience, not about the brand as an image wrapper.
Second, the risk of trying to appeal directly to the "yoof" market.
Check out this load of brand bollocks from the official press release. Hugo Gaines, the over-intellectual and image-obsessed marketing director in the upcoming WTS? book, would have been proud to be produced this load of nonsense:
"The new emblem is dynamic, modern and flexible reflecting a brand savvy world where people, especially young people, no longer relate to static logos but respond to a dynamic brand that works with new technology and across traditional and new media networks."
The clue to where its all gone so horribly wrong is in that bit about "reflecting a brand savvy world where people, especially young people, no longer relate to static logos". It feels like one of those cringe-inducingly embarrassing attempts to "target" directly the youth market. Of course, by trying so hard and being so overt in attempting to create youth appeal the whole thing back-fires, as illustrated by one of the 2967 comments on the BBC 606 blog:
"RIDICULOUS!! It makes me feel depressed and ashamed! I'm 17 and this is certainly not 'cool'!! It's impossible for this logo to be any worse. Please London Olympic Committee----it's not too late to change it! The deformed swastika has to go!"
Or even better, this one nails it on the head:
"Absolutely pathetic - it is like your Dad trying to be cool and ending up just making you (or in this case the entire globe) cringe."
Just like your dad disco dancing in an attempt to be cool, and of course, failing. In fact, perhaps the inspiration behind the logo is that most famous disco-dancing dick-head himself (from the BBC's alternative logo site)...
I've posted about the problem of trying too hard to be cool before, using the launch of mineral water Drench as an example, and then following up with other examples.
Third, the power of "Citizen Marketers".
In the new world of blogging and other online "social media", people power is threat, but also an opportunity (Ben & Jackie at Church of the Consumer are the real experts on this). Tony Blair actually got it right when he said: When people see the new brand, we want them to be inspired to make a positive change in their life." What he didn't expect was that the positive change people would be inspired to make was to campaign for the logo to be changed!
As mentioned earlier, in 24 hours over 18 000 people have signed a poll to change the logo. Almost 3000 have added comments to the BBC blog. And the BCC has set up a site where you can see alternatives proposed by the general public.
Its a shame that the 2012 committee didn't think to harness all this energy and enthusiasm in a positive way BEFORE the logo was revealed. They could have proposed some alternatives and had a public vote using an online poll.
It will be interesting to see if Coe and Co. stick with the "pink swastika"... or if people power wins the day....
The rest of the world has seen it and we are LAUGHING OUT LOUD at England. What a mess. You can bet the French would have never done something this horrible.
Posted by: No Such Thing | June 10, 2007 at 12:23 AM
Its just a scribble!!! We have a scribble for our Olympic logo!!! GREAT!
Posted by: Rebecca | June 08, 2007 at 11:37 PM
It's great how much debate and heated discussion the 'logo affair' has generated. Does it suck because it's so different or is it brilliant because it's so different and innovative?
I'd have to go with the first POV... why? Simply because the idea behind it (the people's Olympics) is not strongly projected by the visual. It's simply trying too hard to look like Logo 2.0 (all hip and digital).
I also read that the 'emblem' (as they call it... why don't they simply call it a 'logo') is 'flexible and will evolve over the next 5 years'. Sounds like a complete cop-out to me. What are the odds of the 'logo' looking completely different to the current incarnation in 5 years time??? Will it be power to the people or will the 'brand guardians' have the last laugh?
Posted by: Graeme Murray | June 06, 2007 at 02:51 PM
I had presumed that Wolf Ollins knocked this up the night before the presentation using Powerpoint. But no, apparently it took a year and £400k. Clearly the fee didn't cover any research... where did all the money go?!
Posted by: Fergus | June 05, 2007 at 10:49 PM
Agreed on the number of UK participated, but shall we wait to hear from the rest of the world, at the end isn't this about the world sporting!!
Posted by: Prize | June 05, 2007 at 03:52 PM
Prize, Is it really too fast to judge this? Certainly not on the "brand as an image wrapper" point...as the new logo was presented as THE BRAND. And this is my main issue...its a logo, so why not just say that.
Second, there is a fundamental issue about involving what are increasingly active consumers in this...24 hours is a short time I agree, but over 18 000 people have signed a poll to change it...and 87% of the UK public voting think it stinks.
So, I'm not much in the mood for giving them a break...what about everyone esle?!
Graeme, good question on what is the idea...which is "everyone's Olympics"...yet it seems that rather than a design for everyone, we have a logo for the "yoof" market.
Posted by: David Taylor (brandgym) | June 05, 2007 at 12:41 PM
I'm still trying to uncover what the brand idea is behind the logo? Is there one I wondered? Well I watched the illustrative brand video (at www.london2012.com/about-newlook-video2.html). This examined what motivates humans to achieve and ends with the line "Everyone's 2012". Whilst very warming and touching, the logo which makes an entrance at the end feels cold and detached from the main theme of this engaging film. A case of a lot of sizzle without any sausage perhaps... or just being different for the sake of it?
Posted by: Graeme Murray | June 05, 2007 at 09:41 AM
I think you are jumping too fast for the conclusion about the new logo of London 2012 Olympic. You already mentioned about how this thing is an image wrapper, but wait a minute, do you already seen another part of the campaign. May be, they might really innovate something new for this Olympic. And I see absolute nothing wrong if they (people who involve in the campaign) take this logo as an inspiration in furtherly working on another mixes.
Give them a brake and give a respect on whom working on it.
Regards
Posted by: Prize | June 05, 2007 at 08:51 AM