« Exhibit A: Dommert Phillips on Design of Story -- Part One | Main | Exhibit A: Dommert Phillips on Design of Story -- Part Deux »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c03bb53ef00e5507193ce8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Conversation of Olympic Proportions:

Comments

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

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.

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.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Advisory Boards


As seen on

Social

Marketing that makes business sense


Conversations


Book Reviews


Comment Policy and Social Guidelines

  • This is my blog and not a public space. Critical discourse is welcomed. However, inappropriate comments will be deleted. See my social guidelines for reference.

Disclaimer

  • The opinions blogged herein represent only those of Valeria Maltoni and do not reflect those of her employer, persons or companies mentioned herein, or anyone else.