How did that 2012 logo happen, and does it matter?
June 5, 2007
There seems to be much consternation as to how the new logo for the 2012 Olympics could have ended up looking...well, like that.
Fortunately, TW Blog's marketing smarts put it in a good position to clarify the affair. If you ask me, the graphic was devised in three easy steps:
- Young people are the answer to everything. Unless the product is SAGA magazine, default to the assumption that it should be Made Edgy So Young People Like It.
- To make something edgy, find out what music young people seem to like and then copy whatever it does.
- Young people currently like bands whose artwork revives trashy 80s graphics.
Okay, let's be serious.
Visually, I don't hate the logo as much as most people seem to. My problem with it is that 2012 needs to inspire broad support - much of the UK is ambivalent towards the event, if not actively opposed to it, and work that seems designed to court controversy will not help.
So while I don't buy, as some posters on the BBC do, that the logo has made us 'a global laughing stock' or that it will directly hurt visitor numbers, its polarising effect is another barrier to the UK presenting itself as an enthusiastic and welcoming host.
What do readers think?
Nathan Midgley
Martin Couzins
Comments (2)
I think I must be alone in actively liking the 2012 logo. OK, the london typeface is a bit comic sans, but apart from that it's great. A bit punk rock, a bit 80s revival...at least it's not some bland and innofensive blob like the Sydney or Atlanta logos. The only problem is the price tag - it should have cost about a tenth of what it did.
Who's to say whether the punk look will still look with it in five years time, but, as the Pistols and the Clash proved, attitude never goes out of fashion.
Posted by matthew hampton | June 13, 2007 3:53 PM
Posted on June 13, 2007 15:53
Not quite matt - one commenter on travel rants was rather partial to it.
Posted by Nathan | June 13, 2007 4:12 PM
Posted on June 13, 2007 16:12