Public Reaction against the London 2012 Olympic Logo
Since we last covered the London 2012 Olympic Logo, we received many quarrelling comments about the concept and design of the logo. Though, the reaction was inevitable, the intensity however, was least expected. It was not only LogoBlog that experienced such phenomenon, but this ‘British embarrassment’ was widely seen and heard all over the Internet. It so happened that within hours of its initial launch, the London 2012 Olympic Logo was largely rejected by many sects of the British society, including a large number of designers.
Moreover, the whole world later joined the British denial by means of a petition started to have the London 2012 Olympic Logo removed. More than 50,000 people have had signed the petition when it finally closed on June 6, 2007. On the other hand, the committee is not contemplating the reaction of many disgruntled people, but are stubbornly sticking to their decision and announcing that the London 2012 Olympic Logo is “here to stay”. Yet, one thing is certain that the London 2012 Olympic Logo has managed to gain popularity in ways no other Olympic logo had ever.
In its official press release, the 2012 London Olympic Committee had this to say about the London 2012 Olympic Logo:
“The new emblem is dynamic, modern and flexible, reflecting a brand savvy world where people, especially young people, no longer relate to static logos but respond to a dynamic brand that works with new technology and across traditional and new media networks.”
However, on the contrary, the general public doesn’t cite such strong and enthusiastic words:
Hitesh Mehta, a communication designer, says:
My first and last impressions on this logo were:
First Impression: Is this a logo?
Last Impression: Is this a logo?
Branding is all about trust, emotion, values, attachment with the people using your brand and understanding the brand as whole, apart from huge investments. Do not try out something extra-ordinary or for the sake of showing how different and innovative one can be, you will end up with blunders like this logo.
John Chan commented:
What a mess! It’s ugly and has nothing to do with the Olympics. It gives off a vibe, which is crass and tasteless - full stop. Horrible colors and aggressive lines. What wally thought this was the best one??
Steve described it:
This logo reminds me of those decade/two decade old television designs with the random jagged edges, bright colors, etc. This is not a modern, open logo. It’s just highly outdated and unimaginative.
Wallace has this to say:
I think it’s junk. Junk would be ok, but a million-dollar junk seems outrageous. Who, in what board meeting, sat around and said, “Oh, yes, that’s worth a million dollars”. He further added: “I don’t think it symbolizes the Olympics. Maybe it symbolizes the collapse of Western Civilization as it squanders precious resource on pointless abstraction while patting itself on the back at the same time. Or maybe it’s just a really bad call.
But above all, I found this guy’s (or gal’s), who didn’t tell us his or her name, comment the best so far, which ironically conveyed an intended meaning perfectly.
S/he says:
If a budget logo designer provides a customer with something like that, he’d be accused of being a scammer.
This worldwide disregard of the London 2012 Olympic Logo isn’t just limited to verbal criticism, but is also subject to physical change, though not officially. In steps to protest more against the logo and/or to publicize it, the Daily Mail, Britain’s second largest selling newspaper, invited the general public and designers to come up with their own version(s) of the London 2012 Olympic Logo. This invitation received a huge response. Here we present some of the logo designs the Daily Mail received:
Share it / Bookmark it
Like this article? Subscribe to the RSS feed!
Related Articles:
December 5th, 2007 at 4:05 am
I can’t understand were this rejection comes from!
I am from Belgium and the logo totally reflects my perception of London. Why the hell do you need a flag in your logo, or the tower of Londen, or … ? All this “designers” who submitted their version are so old fashioned! If you don’t want the logo, give it to me!
If the games would take place in Belgium and some agency would create a million euro logo with the atomium in it and maybe the Belgian flag or maybe some chocolate with french fries … You can have it … I’ll give to you guys …
My opnion … It’s a good logo! Don’t be so patriotic! We’re talking here about the Olympic Games!
December 5th, 2007 at 6:35 am
“Keep the Olympics Clean” is by far my favorite, omg…I almost fell out of my chair from laughing so hard! That person deserves an award or something.
I’d have to agree on all counts that a) this logo is horrific and b) if I had their budget and presented a bright pink and yellow color palette, I’d have to leave town.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:02 am
I’m still unsure of the logo myself, although it’s still only 2007, and we have a good 3 and a half to 4 years before we see it in full swing over different forms of media.
I read into this when the logo was unveiled and the guidelines set by the IOC state that a submitted logo can’t contain any Olympic imagery until it’s chosen, that includes the “olympic rings” and torch motif, if you take these out, the logo still works and it’s still recognisable. Something the Daily Mail readers seem to have overlooked.
I kind of agree with Martijn, London is a massive multi-cultural place, which this logo tries to convey, albeit in a nu-rave style but it’s a bit unfair to slate it this early on. If brutalism is the new 2.0, Olins could prove to be spot on. Or, they could
All that said, Wolff Olins do seem to have dropped the ball a couple of times now. A better point of discussion might be the new Wacom logo, which is in use now. It’s a horrible exercise in photoshop, plus it wasn’t actually drawn with a Wacom tablet (although the new font fits the product).
December 7th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Wow. I think the same board who agreed on the CIA’s Terrorist Buster logo also agreed on this one. I don’t see anything that screams “olympic games” or London. The 2012 reminds me of some cheesey Jamaican font, along with the colors. Are they all going to be wearing Zubaz pants for the opening ceremonies? I think they would coordinate quite well with the logo.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
It’s true, the painful vision of the accepted logo has been a real hot button issue, but the plain truth is, it’s horrible and contains no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I’m sorry that Belgium has such a horrific vision of what London is. It’s not that, truly.
The other logos submitted as alternatives suffer much the same effect, if not just being completely tasteless (with the exception of 1 or 2).
I really do love how the protest against this disgusting emblem was plainly ignored, how American of them.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Well, the designers had the right idea: vibrant, youthful and any other rubbish they can come up with (’…works with new technology…’).
Except, for me, it looks like something out of the 1980s (designers in their 30s perhaps?). It ain’t clever, it ain’t modern, it’s retro now and it’ll be even more retro in 2012 - although it IS distinctive.
Oh yeah, and for people who cannot read English, it probably just looks like blobs of puke with the Olympic rings stuck in one corner. Perhaps the ‘0′ is supposed to be like the shape of London.
PS. I don’t particularly like it.
December 9th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
I totally agree with Martijn, this logo is superb, I loved it from the moment I saw it. It’s 2012 for christ sake, the world is digital and the city is London. Design is urban, young, messy, in your face, vibrant, non traditional, non 1912, it’s LOUD and thank god not national. Flags are gone for good I hope.
My respect to London Committee.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:41 am
I’m afraid that I don’t agree with Martijn or Igor. I’m all for progress, and looking to the future, but this doesn’t say “digital” to me. It just says “unimaginative”. Whilst I appreciate the designer’s courage in steering clear of traditional or historical influence, that alone does not make for a great logo.
December 12th, 2007 at 2:19 am
Absolutely! The logos in here were so great and this is something for me new. I was so amaze seeing all this stuffs. Thanks. Hope to see another stuffs like this.
December 14th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Its a great logo, how many Olimpic logos can you remember? This one will be in our minds for ages.
When more than 50,000 people spent time to sign anything means that logo dont make you indiferent… what a better proof?
December 19th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
I believe the logo is definately unique…well, it,s actually like random geometry torn and tossed…then given a 90’s vibrant shadow…too vibrant, my eye actually hurts when I look at it. So, what is the shape’s relevance? and the text/logo in it? scale this down and the text is unreadable and the Olympic rings become a stain…guess the designer and staff didn’t think this through..well, they probably did, they just considered everything BUT the design itself, just the concept. And since when do you pay a mill and get a logo with another logo stuck on it? they,re hiring to copy and paste these days? I COULD use the money….
December 19th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
I just read the original article…so it is a 2012…abstracted? the ‘brand savvy ‘Coe’ should look up what interactivity means, as I can hardly make out how THIS particular logo is interactive above all others.
”young people, no longer relate to static logos but respond to a dynamic brand that works with new technology and across traditional and new media networks.”
all this seems to undermine other logos as well…precisely WHAT is it that makes this so unique? it ”works” with new technology and ”across new media networks”? I guess THAT explains their heavy investment…or is it BECAUSE of their heavy investment that they need explain it, with such colorful rubbish ? Magical realism anyone?