A Conversation of Olympic Proportions

Is 2012 the official date for the end of the world? It would seem that way. I was tempted again to title this post: it's not about the logo. As the one designed for the Olympic Games in London has ruffled quite a few feathers.

Cam Beck has a nice take on marketing largesse at ChaosScenario. Invest your money on training world class athletes instead of paying $800,000 for a logo, he says.

I think we can all agree on one thing this logo accomplished: it's making people talk. Talk is good, it can polarize *and* it can change lives. You know what happens when I start off an encounter with someone or something on opposites ends? It's like in the movies; we end up loving each other -- even when we disagree respectfully.

So the point of this post is not to agree or disagree with the end result. I like it. As I said at David Armano's Logic + Emotion (there's a great discussion there, you should check it out), to me it works. Here are the two main messages it communicates:

• 2012 -- I see it right away. At first I thought it was because I grew up on puzzles and 'find what's missing in this picture' games. Now that I've had a few moments to ponder the comments around the blogosphere, I see that most of those who state they don't see the number are males. A few even said that their wives saw it immediately, like I did. In my experience, females tend to be better at recognizing patterns.
• Origami -- the concept, as in creativity, imagination, pieces that fit together, team spirit, and people. The jagged image does look like a person. "The new emblem is dynamic, modern and flexible. It will work with new technology and across traditional and new media networks," says the design brief. Maybe this is what they meant.

One thing is for sure, the logo launch has created one heck of a public relations and marketing campaign for the 2012 Olympics. Is the coverage worth $800,000? Maybe so. It got citizens talking, globally. Isn't that what the spirit of the games should be?

[We interrupted Part Deux of my interview with Alice Dommert for this discussion on branding. Exhibiting interested marketing behavior.]

UPDATE: The International Herald Tribune -- in one respect, the London 2012 logo was a big success: The logo introduction was a textbook example of marketing in the Web 2.0 era, when gold medals are handed out for achieving maximum brand-building buzz at a minimum cost.

Comments

[gianandrea facchini]

valeria, i have the feeling that most of the olympics logos are pretentious.
probably too many money around.
i do not like the logo because it can be read easily. we should remember that the logo has to be understood all over the world by people with different cultures and attitudes and i think this logo does not accomplish this goal.

[david armano]

Gianandrea sums it up, and this is where I ended up my part of the conversation over at my place. The identity shouldn't divide it should do the opposite. The audience is global. Now of course to come up with something everyone loves is impossible. But this is the opposite end of that spectrum. Valeria, you did a much better job in selling the idea than they did. If they had a design that was as good as your communication, then we'd both be talking about what a great visual identity it was. Thanks for the comments.

[Nancy]

The one good thing about this logo is that it will be remembered. How many of the past Olympic logos/mascots can we recall?

Now, perhaps all the controversy isn't in keeping with the spirit of the games to unite athletes and people from across the globe. And it probably isn't exactly what the logo designer had in mind. But it does have a conversation started -- and a passionate one at that -- and that is usually a very good thing.

[Valeria Maltoni]

Gianandrea -- the reason why it resonated with me is probably quite simple. At one point I worked for a Swiss company that used origami as a tool to educate employees.

David -- I was surprised by the meager communications brief. I put my post together in less time, I'm sure.

Nancy -- that was part of my point: resonance. I cannot remember most of those seasonal or event-specific logos. Yet, I'm pretty sure I will remember this one.

[gianandrea facchini]

Switzerland is such an incredible country!!!

[Chris Baskind]

As art, it's interesting. As a logo, it's bloody awful.

Logos are for one thing: graphic identification. In my mind, an Olympic logo must communicate three things:

* It's the Olympics. The easy part, thanks to the strong identity of the Olympic rings.

* The year. This is the universal means by which people refer to the individual Olympic games.

* The city. Something of the host's essence should be communicated here.

So how does this logo perform? Let's grade the three main requirements.

The Olympics: the traditional colors of the rings have been jettisoned -- not fatal, but not helpful, either. At least the rings are up top. I think the background suggests mountains, though, and this isn't the Winter Games. C+

The year: like Valeria, I got the 2012 allusion pretty quickly. But we seem to be in the minority. There's no good reason for this. The numbers, such as they are, are made less readable since the "2" characters are rendered differently. A "D" is generous.

The city: I agree with Valeria that the logo suggests origami. Unfortunately, the 2012 Olympics are being held in London, not Japan.The tiny "london" typestyle makes the city seem small and weak. Nothing here is iconic of the venue's landmarks or architecture. I think this aspect of the logo is a complete failure, and it deserves an "F."

The logo doesn't pass. Yes, it's vibrant and modern -- but so are a lot of cities. Yes, it suggests creativity -- but that's not really an attribute one requires of an athletic competition. Yes, it generated publicity -- but not *useful* publicity.

I expect we'll see a redesign by year's end.

[Lewis Green]

Chris,

I hope you are wrong about the redesign. The logo has already cost too much, and the Olympics Brand is neither hurt nor helped by the logos that come and go. A brand is not the logo. A brand is made up of human experiences not visual representations. As marketers, we use visual representations to help tell a story, and this logo will serve that purpose.

[Chris Baskind]

I think the redesign is going to be politically driven. They've got MPs on TV frothing at the mouth. Ugly. ;-)