Comments on: Public Reaction against the London 2012 Olympic Logo

By: Yaco

Yaco — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 05:19:01 +0000

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?

By: Yaco

Yaco — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 04:41:07 +0000

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….

By: Sergio Ordoñez

Sergio Ordoñez — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 04:29:20 +0000

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?

By: Adriane

Adriane — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:19:14 +0000

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.

By: Outsourcing Logo Design

Outsourcing Logo Design — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:41:14 +0000

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.

By: Igor

Igor — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:19:46 +0000

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.

By: Mujammil

Mujammil — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 03:47:46 +0000

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.

By: Gedimin

Gedimin — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 22:25:18 +0000

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.

By: michelle

michelle — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:44:32 +0000

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.

By: Pete

Pete — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:02:40 +0000

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).