London 2012

So the logo for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games was unveiled this morning. I'm not going to get into the official details of the actual logo and branding concept - you can read all about that on the official website and in today's BBC article on it. I will give one official piece of information on it though - this cost £400,000!

What the...? Suffice it to say, practically everybody that I have encountered in London, both in real life and on the radio/TV, is unhappy with it. My initial instinct is to hate it. The logo itself comes in four colours: fuschia pink, light blue, orange, and kind of a fluoride green. You can see all four variations here at the bottom. It's very 80's, and I'm not sure in the good way. In fact, it's more early 90's, in a sort of "Saved by the Bell" kind of way (watch the video on this link and then compare with the video on the official website linked above, particularly the part after the dive into the pool, to see what I mean). Anyway, the point is, all this money, all this effort, and this is what they came up with?

The chairman of the London 2012 organising committee, Seb Coe, admitted that the logo wouldn't be to everyone's taste, but he insisted that it put across the message that he wanted the London Games to deliver, namely that they are "Everyone's Games". By being everyone's games, they're hoping that they will inspire people, particularly young people, to take part in the many sporting, cultural, educational, and community activities surrounding the Games, and to achieve their own personal goals. In the words of Tony Blair, "When people see the new brand, we want them to be inspired to make a positive change in their life."

I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you, Tony. This is hardly an "inspirational" logo. I am not an artist or designer by any means, but I do know a lot about art and design and I do think I have pretty good taste. Sometimes you see things that might not be aesthetically pleasing to you personally, but you kind of get it. Something about it works - especially when it comes to branding and logos. But in this case, I just don't see it. What am I not getting? What are my eyes not seeing? I'm all for taking a risk and doing something edgy and innovative. That is what London itself is all about, after all. But the logo should capture the city and its people somehow - it should define what London and Londoners are all about. Not in a cliché London Eye type of way, but in terms of the energy that emanates off the logo. This simply doesn't.

As I said, my first instinct is to hate it, but I have decided that I am going to give this logo the benefit of the doubt for a little while longer. A part of me really wants to believe that there is something that I am missing and that this really was worth the £400,000 they spent on it. I will wait and see what they do with this concept which, according to Coe, is not a logo, "it's a brand that will take us forward for the next five years." It wouldn't really matter what this logo looked like except that this brand is going to be taking over London over the next five years! The venues of the Olympic city are going to be built around this design concept. If Londoners don't like it, that's a problem, because they're the ones who are going to have to live with it over the next five years, as well as in the future (since the new Olympic site will remain forever).

What does everyone else think?

Update: Good new article about the logo from today's BBC online.
Update 2: The video on the official website has been removed from their site because apparently the part I mentioned above when the guy dives into the pool and there is a multi-colour ripple effect, has triggered epileptic seizures. Read more about it here. I think it's funny how the spokeswoman has to make it clear that it was the animation, and not the logo itself, that caused health concerns. Also, if the whole point of this logo is that it is dynamic and can be animated, this is certainly going to put a kink in their plans!