Marketing Around The Table
QUESTION: Was the London 2012 logo worth the £400,000 it cost to produce?
1
Brian Mansfield
MD, Blue Marlin
NO!… now what to do with 299 more words? Joking aside, the problem with the 2012 ‘logo’ and the vilification it has received since its initial launch is also reflected in the wording of this question. Wolff Olins wasn’t paid four hundred grand for a logo alone, it was paid this amount to develop a complete visual identity system. Quoting the project price, not the ‘logo’ price is misleading.
What we have seen to date is just the tip of the iceberg for this VI system, and, I suspect, is also a deliberately blank canvass onto which the complete brand experience will be painted and animated over the next five years.
Brand identity is no longer about a static and isolated brand marque that appears on the top right of letterheads and brochures. Any modern, dynamic branding system must now embrace highly digital and environmental applications – and this could not be truer than for the Olympics. In five years time we’ll be viewing the identity on mobile phones, mobile TV and living signage and not as a static two-dimensional graphic. As an avatar-style graphic it lends itself to animation, flexible application and adoption by its young target audience.
Wolff Olins are no fools, nor is the committee behind the choice of this identity – with a brief to be “dynamic, vibrant, contemporary, flexible and inspiring” I think the design ticks all the boxes.
As the application and evolution of the identity becomes more evident over time I think it will force many (including myself, who hated it at first sight) to re-evaluate their initial assessments. As one London design commentator, Michael Wolff, summed up perfectly, “It’ll endure by being entertaining.” We’ve only seen the first frame of this particular movie – reserve your judgement!
2
Josh Cohen
Creative director, Lemonade
When asked to give my opinion on the 2012 London Olympics brand and if it was ‘worth it’, my first thoughts were to define what do I personally think of it and what do I think of it acting as a communication piece.
I think the thing that has to be asked first is what were the main objectives and brief in developing the brand? Was it to capture the lifestyle, culture and heritage of London? Was it to promote awareness of the 2012 Games worldwide or was it to be reflective of the games and the athletes? Some would say all three.
Now personally, I am indifferent to the identity; it neither offends me nor inspires me. But I give my full kudos to a committee that went through the whole development process and arrived to endorse the identity and run with it.
The brand straight off the bat is brave, bold and undoubtedly controversial. It may be crude in its execution and some may say simplistic. It probably also doesn’t resonate with the large majority of the conservative, traditional establishment of Old London Town, but you know what? They’re talking. They’re debating and discussing it all across the nation, from the pubs, to the high courts, from Buckingham Palace to the ghettos down south. People have definite views on the ID either way. They love it or hate it... either way they won’t forget it! Talk about cut-through.
What could be the alternative? Is it some sort of organic androgynous figure holding an English rose in the red, white and blue livery with some silhouette of the London Eye in the background? Would we even be discussing our thoughts on this clichéd safe and ‘likeable’ direction on the other side of the world?
Make no mistake, this logo was not just put out there by a self-gratifying designer with an agenda with only one person making the decision. This was a calculated, researched, debated and strategically developed brand designed to polarise and create debate.
So in my eyes, it was worth every cent! Bring on 2012.
3
Lara Daly
General manager, Anthemperks
For an identity with this level of prominence, I would normally argue that a fee in the multiple hundred thousands is a worthwhile and necessary investment to cover the creative and strategic inputs and ensure what was likely a comprehensive and lengthy consultation process with both clients and customers.
Unfortunately, the time and financial investment in this identity doesn’t seem to have taken the public audience into account if the outcry is an accurate reflection of the general sentiment.
In general, I believe one of the roles of design can be to challenge audiences – sparking discussion and debate. The design brief, however, was for “an emblem that represented the four key brand pillars of access, participation, stimulation and inspiration”, culminating in the brand vision of 'Everyone’s Games’. In short, an identity that is welcoming and garners immediate acceptance and respect rather than one that challenges and provokes.
There is an oft-quoted reference from Henry Ford regarding market research – “If I had asked people what they wanted, I would have built a faster horse.” The quote is used to defend the lack of customer research for projects requiring great leaps of vision and foresight that marketers often rightly don’t expect from customers.
For a brand that is about encouraging participation and sustained interest from a broad cross-section of the global public, however, a more inclusive approach to developing the 2012 Olympic logo would have been more appropriate. A broad conversation with the ‘man on the street’ via an online public vote may have prevented the backlash against a logo that no doubt appeals to a niche group of design ‘visionaries’ rather than to the mainstream British public.
Let’s hope that this identity is brought to life and reveals further depth over the next five years and that some of the sharp corners and flat colours are softened and rounded by a more human face and inclusive interpretation.
4
Richard Henderson
CEO and creative director, R-CO Australia
Olympic branding is complex and challenging. Any observations of the London 2012 Olympic Games identity program must take into account the size of the task, the agendas that surround it and the objectives of the London Olympic Games Committee. The 2012 brand mark is a bold and dynamic break with the past. Previous Games brand mark references to the city or country of origin, always a mandatory aspect of the brief, have been put aside in favour of creating a contemporary attitude – a design solution that grabs your attention and shakes your perception about what the Olympic Games is all about.
An Olympic Games identity (which includes look and feel) has only a six-year window in which to gain traction and maximise its value as a brand asset. This is not long when you consider the expectation that all stakeholders have of it. So to achieve ROI for an Olympic identity the world has to ‘love it’.
Against this background, serious communication questions must be asked of the L2012 brand mark. Why is the Olympic rings symbol, an icon of immense value, buried within the graphic forms? And why is the destination of ‘London’ – a brand that evokes all kinds of aspirations – set in all lowercase like an apology.
A critical aspect of a brand strategy, particularly if you are a brand connecting with a global audience, is establishing emotional connections that engage through meaning. There are plenty of great design solutions that are globally popular and commercially savvy (Apple, Virgin, Ikea, Google, Nike, I love NY, etc.). They know that simplicity and synergy of the heart with the mind is essential for ‘loving’ the brand.
At the end of the day, Olympic brand identity is about inspiration and motivation. And business. Surely these aspects are at the core of our profession. Designers should aspire to greatness, but also be accountable.
“We don’t do bland,” declared Lord Coe, CEO of L2012. Fantastic. And fortune favours the brave. But in the world of Olympic branding, which relies upon meaningful symbolic storytelling, a brand mark that has been designed to express a ‘London attitude’ (whatever that is) may have a serious communication problem.
5
Tara Power
Business director, Passport Design
All the excitement of winning the Olympic bid for 2012 (I was living in London when it was all happening) was something to behold. It was a great pitch. It had vision, it had a future, it showed diversity, and it was about the belief that anyone could achieve. The new brand, however, was already on a pedestal before it was even created – it was ready for a fall.
Edgy? Well, there are certainly a lot of edges to it! It is meant to be harnessing the connection of many facets of the Games and community, but this is where London has made a mistake in the creation of its new brand – it is trying to communicate too many things. Be all things to all people. The actual five rings Olympic logo itself is fantastic. Simple and clear – doing exactly what it says on the can.
I admire them for trying to encompass their vision within a logo, but the best brands are always the simplest. Leveraging the Paralympics within the brand is also a noble cause, but you wouldn’t know it unless the entirety of the logo was explained to you. Surely the strongest of brands don’t need explanations?
Was it worth the money? Probably not. The story to go with this ‘visual icon’ has been left in the pitch, in the connectivity of it all. Unfortunately that is not what is left on a letterhead or t-shirt.
On a positive note, the brand launch website allows users to get creative, albeit from a somewhat prescriptive palette of templates but still, I think Abbie at Heathfield High may be giving the brand company a run for their money. It begs the question: maybe the logo should have been put out to pitch to the nation? A true challenge, a venture that would have encompassed the very heart of what I believe the London Olympics committee set out to achieve; giving it back to the people, the community – it is their Olympics after all!
I couldn't help noticing the similarity between it and the work of 80s New York based artist Keith Haring.
www.diffusionblog.blogspot.com