The new brand for the London 2012 Olympics has been revealed. Apparently it’s meant to be “dynamic, modern, flexible”, “user-friendly” and seen on “social networks and mobile phones”. Too bad it’s horrendous then.
Alex is CEO of Sideshow , an award winning creative agency. You can read his blog here.
Damn, that’s horrendous alright. Ouch!
I agree. Not a good result considering Wolff Olins were awarded the commission over a year ago.
Yuck. Very disappointing :O(
I’d like to see the other choices Wolff Olins offered them? Sometimes the client should not be the decision maker :).
I’m stunned at how awful that emblem is. Compared to the branding used for the original London 2012 bid and something like the rejected Chicago logo featured here recently, it’s just embarrassing.
That’s why you don’t offer the client a horrible choice. Whoever selected it, Wolff Olins offered it up as a possible option.
Ever know about the chinese game “Tangram”? I guess they were playing and it just dropped to the floor and they went: “oh, look, that’s nice…”.
OK, I agree the actual logo is horrendous (and I can’t get the image of Lisa Simpson giving head out of my brain, which someone on another blog likened it to).
But the coloured shard effects as they appear in the movie seem rather nice and very versatile. I’m almost affraid to say but: I like it.
I actually think it’s a good departure from the standard logo design for Olympics and World Cups. It’s also very unique in that it doesn’t appear to be inspired by anything that’s “hot” today (i.e. by Web 2.0-like design)
Got to give it up to the designer who sold that steaming pile. The Washington Post said it went for $800,000. I don’t think I could get $800 for it.
If someone in my shop had provided that as a design I’d have sacked them on the spot. In my two decades of design and branding I have to say that that is simply the most horrible logo (and they’re calling it a “brand”?) I’ve ever seen. Awful. And you wonder why our profession is considered a joke. Laughable.