As the rants continue to flood the blogosphere, I'm getting asked for my opinion on the new marque for the London 2012 Olympics, designed by Wolff Olins.
I'm not going to focus on the design itself - that's being covered very well over at Logic and Emotion and at Coudal Partners (what is it with Chicago?) and elsewhere.
I'm going to look at some of the issues that I think this raises.
Nowhere to hide: the online launch and subsequent blogosphere frenzy is yet more proof that these days there's nowhere to hide. Brands are finding that transparency is all and that a groundswell of opinion either good or bad can be generated within the briefest amount of time and seemingly little effort. In this instance, maybe LOCOG and Wolff Olins might have been prepared for a backlash, with at least a contingency in case public opinion was negative. But they appear to have gone to ground. I can't help but wonder what effect this will have on Omnicom owned Wolff Olins. Today's consumers have a good memory, check out Krytonite who were eventually forced to replace product.
Who owns the Olympics? This raises questions around ownershipo and responsibility. Do the Olympics belong to the IOC in Lusanne or does it belong to the people of the World? Is the UK merely borrowing it, entrusted with it's safe-keeping for 4+ years? If so, what right do we have to change it's direction, it's essence, it's meaning? We, the public are stumping up cash so what say can we have in what it's spent on?
Reinventing the Olympics: Maybe there's a sub-text here. The Olympics needs to innovate itself, connect with new audiences, it's time to be a modern multimedia brand - more, much more than a sports event. So out with the old conservative and static, in with 'Dynamic, Modern and Flexible'. But that's just a hypothesis.
Olympics as cultural 'tool': If the Olympics is more than a sports event then it's long been used for other, loftier purposes, national identity, civic pride, urban regeneration. In the 21st century it's a money-spinner and a cultural tool for re-stimulating a love of sport amongst the 'playstation generation'.
Communication tool: As a brand, the marque must serve as a visual communication tool. It must function to communicate effectively, appropriately and hopefully in a visually arresting way given it's symbolic nature. If this were 'art' not commerce you could say that 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder', but it ain't art - it's got a job to do, pure and simple.
That said, from a craft perspective and when seen alongside the marques of the next 2 games (and indeed most from recent games) it certainly breaks the conservative mold. My first impression was that it is slightly clunky, a little aggressive and I still have problems reading the '2012'. I don't hate it but nor do I love it. However it's very early days yet, and I'd like to think that WO know a thing or two about these things having created the identity for Athens 2004 and many other world class identities.
System not static: So the marque is only the start-point for a whole system, an identity ecology reaching out across multilple touchpoints over time and through multiple media. Part of the event that will enrich the experience (try and stop me going; the last thing I want is another press destroyed debacle like the Dome). That is when it will truely come to life, when it will sing and we'll see the marque's true colours.
So ask yourself, what could have been done better? For me it's this whole launch thing - the promotion has been badly executed. Us, the audience have been underestimated and over-looked. The language used is all too 'design consultant gobble-de-gook' and does nothing to help explain or suggest what's to come and it's tone is all too 'top down'.
So after an akward launch the rest of the journey, I'm sure, will be a success.
