The SIG Column – 5 June

The launch of the 2012 Olympics logo has met with a less than
favourable response from a public reeling at the branding’s attempt at speaking
to the country’s youth. Drew Barrand, head of media at Sportindustry.biz,
explains why initial reaction to a logo is not the yardstick of success for
London 2012…

If the old motto of ‘any press is good press’ rings true then the London 2012
organising committee has surpassed itself this week.

Based purely on level of response, the launch of the new logo has prompted
way more coverage than they would ever have dreamed of. Unfortunately for Lord
Coe et al, most of the reaction has not exactly been a ringing endorsement of
the new look.

In fact so vitriolic has the response been that online petitions have been
drawn up to get the logo scrapped while web bloggers all over the country have
been putting forward their own designs as an alternative.

At a cost of £400,000, the logo created by design agency Wolff Olins has been
labelled with every derogatory insult under the sun from ‘national
embarrassment’ and ‘absolutely pathetic’ to, somewhat more bizarrely, ‘the spawn
of Bart and Lisa Simpson’.

The combination of bright colours and modern jagged edges were designed to
appeal to the core youth audience at which London 2012 is aimed but for many it
lacked any level of subtlety required to make it ‘cool’.

It was almost like you could see what they were going for but that the design
team got carried away with making an impact as opposed to making something
attractive on the eye.

There are some positives. The logo is designed to be eye-catching and I don’t
think anyone can deny that it certainly makes an impact on the memory.
Additionally, its flexibility will have pleased the sponsors who can adapt the
logo to their own brand colours.

Despite these commercial advantages, the public’s response is a big thumbs
down. Add into the mix the emergence that the accompanying promotional film
could trigger epileptic fits and you have what amounts to a communications
disaster.

But enough of the slagging off. Let’s get some perspective because, in the
long-term, it won’t really matter whether you like it or not.

London 2012 won’t fail in its stated aims because people find the logo too
gaudy. Kids won’t shy away from involvement in the Games because the branding
isn’t trendy enough.

It’s a logo and a logo’s primary purpose is to remind you of what it
represents. This viewpoint might not be the popular view in branding agencies up
and down the country but, in my mind, it’s the only attribute that matters.

Look at some of the biggest selling companies in this country. How many
people bow down in wonder at the design intricacies of the Marks & Spencer
logo? Who quivers in delight at the branding on cans of Coca-Cola?

Ok…so maybe some work-obsessed designers might…but for the majority of us,
the logo is almost inconsequential in the long-term because it’s the product
inside that really engages with the consumer.

London 2012 will succeed through the marketing programmes and community
projects it launches in the run-up to the Games and through its PR message, not
whether the UK public thinks its logo is the very definition of cool.

If the London 2012 organisers create good feeling through initiatives such as
these than all the logo need do is remind people of these programmes by doing
its first and most important task. Representing that which it stands for.

You can quibble about the fact that, for many, it could look easier on the
eye and you could even contend that a more universally accepted logo would have
given the Games organisers a push start rather than stalling so dramatically,
but in the end it won’t matter a jot if London 2012 gets its promotional message
right. This week has been a missed opportunity but it won’t bring down the
house.