The new logo for the London Olympics of 2012 has been unveiled. It is, as described by the BBC, a “jagged emblem, based on the date 2012, comes in a series of shades of pink, blue, green and orange.” The “brand” (it’s not a logo, it’s a ‘brand’…) is said to be aimed the young people, hence its “modern” take on the Olympic colours and it’s “innovative” design.
In fact, it is just shit. How on earth can £400,000 be justified on being spent on that?! It doesn’t look like the “2012″ it is supposed to resemble, but more like a bad logo for an 80s product. Or, as it has been described [and once you see it the design will always look like it] Lisa Simpson performing oral sex.
It is so bad that an online petition was set up within hours of the “jagged” logo being unveiled, and already has nearly 6,500 signatures.
Tessa Jowell says that the logo “sums up what London 2012 is all about.” If that logo sums it up, then we’re in for a really shit, and cartoon pornographic, Olympics.
Other bloggers on the logo: Theo Spark, Devil’s Kitchen, Mr Eugenides
Images by Theo Spark
UPDATE: Theo again excelling himself, showing how we are being truly shafted by £400,000 of our money being spent on a truly terrible logo “brand”. I mean, had they paid just £10,000 it might have been worth it. But £400,000?! Not a chance. Far better to have held an open competition for the design - it would have cost less and looked far better!
The petition to change the logo has reached more than 13,600 signatures - and is still growing. If you haven’t already, please go and sign it, and save us from this horrible logo!
UPDATE 2: It can also cause epileptic seizures.
Sources: BBC, The Telegraph, The Times
Now 13.5k signatures.
Every single time a company or organisation unveils a new logo or brand (and there is a difference, I’ve been doing a lot of with with the new St John Ambulance brand), loads of people complain about it.
It’s impossible to think of something that will keep everyone happy. Incorporating a new logo into a brand is more than just the logo too - it’s how the logo will be used, and how the company will be portrayed with uniformity. Getting everything planned does cost money - so it’s not £400k on a logo, it’s £400k on the entire brand.
And everyone always moans, could you do better? Ensuring you keep to all the restraints that the 2012 committee want incorporating in the brand? GO for a competition if you want - have you seen Blue Peter lately?
Personally, I think it’s perfectly suitable. It’s certainly much better than a recent rebranding that involving the production of a new logo with a tree :p
I would have flunked 3rd grade art class for offering up such drek. I’ve seen better graffiti in a public toilet.
That’s hilarious!
I could have designed something better myself, and I suck at that sort of thing.
bGZjWF hi! hice site!