The uproar around the unveiling of the London 2012 logo will probably not have passed you by, but here are some links, just incase. The bbc report is worthy of a look, as are some of the video reports, and the page where readers have submitted their own designs, (all of which are worse than the real one). What’s really interesting is what this says to the general public at large about design. The ‘I could do better’ mentality is not helpful or justified in most cases, but by spending this much money on the identity alone, and launching the logo with such a fanfare, you’re essentially on a hiding to nothing. I really think only on the rarest of occasions should you launch a new brand alone – if tied to a radical change of direction or new organisational structure then fine, but a big launch, just to unveil an identity design tends to look frivilous and empty. Back to the design itself, I do think the logo is pretty awful, but it’s probably been designed with a strong committee factor at work, essentially trying to please all of the people all of the time, and in the circumstances it is far better than the benign and anodyne offering which could have been produced. I would far rather they tried something bold which maybe caused a stir than settled for the least offensive lowest common denominator possible.
I agree that it’s good to come up with something new. But that’s about the only thing I think it’s good about this whole branding effort. It would have been perfectly possible to design something that’s both new and original, and somewhat topical AND easy on the eye. Especially for 400.000 pounds.
I completely agree with you Marco. In no way would I defend it, apart from the ‘different-ness’ but there’s no point being different just for the sake of it – I think it probably also fails every accessibility guideline, and the BBC were reporting that it was provoking epileptic attacks. Can’t recall the last time a logo made someone physically ill… then again…