The brandgym blog

More on that stupid 2012 logo

Few new things I found on the 2012 Olympics logofiasco.

First, I saw this load of old bollocks, that I take to be an official promo video. Never has a strategy been shouting out so desperately. "We want to be cool and edgy, like, man. Yeah." Really, really is about as cool as watching your dad disco dancing.

A much better video is this one. Naughty, so only click if you're not sensitive to kinky stuff. But funny.

But best of all has to be this alternative logo, which really sums it all up:

It will be interesting to see what the "evolution" of the logo will be. The Times reported that "After a month of protests, designers have devised a less controversial version of the logo." To which an official spokesperson replied in fluent brand bollocks "This is not a climbdown, rather an attempt to 'populate”'an evolving brand."

And the worse thing of all is of course not the shit logo itself, but the fact that this whole balls up has reinforced the idea that logo=brand=logo. What matters most is what the athlete and visitor experience will be like. That's really what the brand should be all about. And we'll have to wait a bit longer to find out about that.

London 2012 LOGO: like your dad disco dancing

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....

"Lovemarks": Brand Theories Unwrapped, Part 1

I thought it might be interesting to feature a few of the hot branding theories of the day. Give you a snack-size version of what the concept is, and what I see as the strengths and weaknesses. And invite you to chip in what you think, and especially experience of what works for you in practice. First up, Lovemarks TM.

This is the creation of ad agency Saatchi, and the main man selling the concept is global CEO, Kevin Roberts. He's a passionate and piss-taking speaker, worth checking out if you get the chance.

In a nutshell, a Lovemark is loved, not just respected, as the 2x2 matrix shows (info taken from Kevin's guest blog on Brand Strategy Insider. Using his words, Lovemarks have "Irresistible appeal" are "Customized, differentiated" and create "Loyalty beyond reason".

What works for me?
I'm all for the idea of brands that combine emotional appeal and product performance, as you will know by now. For Robert's respect and love, read my sausage and sizzle.

Watch-outs
1. Roberts is in the school of "forget the product". In his words, people want "something beyond benefits, attributes, performance, functionality". Its all about emotion. The risk of this is that brand teams try to go straight from product (bottom-left) to Lovemark (top-right) without getting a great product. Then, you end up with an "image-wrapper" of great communication and not product.

And this overlooks many brilliant brands built on great products/packaging: innocent, Gu, Harley Davidson etc.

2. The selection of Lovemarks appears like what I call a "beauty contest"...nominations are based on subjective views of what is cool and loveable, not on what has proven to build the business (sorry to be so dull as to worry about sales and profit...)

3. Its still ad-centric, and even TV-centric. Though the Lovemarks gospel preaches the importance of new channels and new media, the presentation I saw consisted mainly of TV ads. There was nothing much at all about product, that's for sure. Roberts' area of focus is clear: TV "is still the No. 1 global medium and the best selling tool ever. 2.5 billion Households in the world have one. TV is inclusive. Everyone can use one. People love to watch. Any creative, ambitious person wants to attract the widest audience". So, the cynic in me says Lovemarks is just another way to get companies to spend more on advertising, with Saatchi of course.

For another take on Lovemarks, check out Hugh's thoughts on Gaping Void...he's a bit more scathing than me:

"I find both Saatchi's "Lovemarks" and its sequel, "The Lovemarks Effect" utterly unreadable. Together they form a shallow and vapid tragicomedy, of sorts"

So, are you in love with Lovemarks?

BBC one's £1.2 m "re-brand"

To help it stand out from the plethora of digital channels fighting for attention in the UK, television channel BBC1 has just spent £1.2 million on eight new "idents": the 10 second clips that link programmes. These have a consistent circular design, including hippos swimming and surfers filmed in Mexico. The other big change is that the logo will now have, wait for it, a lower case "o" to replace the "O" in One. So that's BBC one. Not BBC One. According to the head of marketing this "re-brand" will present "a warmer, friendlier feel".

This comes across as "image wrapper" branding, working on the outer presentation of the brand, rather than the fundamentals of the product. What's more, the identity change is so minor that the you wonder if anyone apart from the BBC will notice (admittedly, its hard to change such an iconic brand too much).

To make things worse, the timing of the launch of the new idents and logo came on the same day as the announcement of a further 108 job cuts, bringing the total to 428. A spokesperson from the broadcasting union summed up the re-branding perfectly: "The money spent on the new idents could have paid for at least 30 staff to help maintain programme standards. It is the quality of the programmes that keeps the license payers watching, not the new channel idents".

The new idents do look spectacular, and I for one prefer them versus the previous lot, but the change would have been much more effective if it had been accompanies with some more "sausage" i.e. an announcement about innovation and investment in programming.

5-minute workout: are your comms. and brand identity efforts supporting real product improvement, or are they just image wrapper branding?