The new 2012 London Olympic Games logos are an expensive embarrassment:
The Official Media Release about the new logo is full of spin and endorsements from people with a vested financial or political interest in exploiting the Games.
The new London 2012 brand was designed by Wolff Ollins. The design brief 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'."
They are not 'Everyone's Games' !!
They are only pretending to be "politically correct" and inclusive - there has been no public consultation or a design competition open to the public to suggest a new logo.
Wolff Olins (Note to the London Olympics spin doctors - there is only one "l" in "Olins") are a corporate re-branding agency, notorious for being used by incompetent management (who never seem to bother to consult their employees or customers) to produce new, expensive corporate brand logos, which are either virtually indistinguishable from the old ones, or are completely meaningless, and which are usually dropped a few months later e.g. the British Telecom "Piper" logo, the former chemical industry giant ICI , the notorious re-branding of the Post Office as Consignia, Price Waterhouse Coopers rebranding as Monday etc.
The Register describes them as "whalesong" merchants, who seem to have trousered at least £400,000 for this logo design and brand consultancy.
- The fact that the new logo is officially available in 4 different colour schemes betrays the indecision and dithering by Lord Coe and the Olympic Delivery Authority - why could they not decide on just one logo ? Have they never heard of the concept of "brand dilution" ?
- Why does the logo not mention "2012" at all ?
- Why is "london" not capitalised as "London" ?
- What is so terrible about the existing "bid" logo design, which is at least a lot clearer than this new one ?
Perhaps the real clue as to the why this logo design is so awful can be gleaned from the end of the press release:
The unique new emblem already enjoys legal protection, offering London 2012 and its sponsors protection from copying and ambush marketing.
Remember that words or images like "London" or "Olympic(s)" or "2012" have been nationalised by the NuLabour Government and will be sold as exclusive monopolies for advertising purposes to the corporate sponsors of the scheme.
Perhaps the politicians are planning to try to clean up graffiti and unsightly vomit from the streets of London, by fining the people responsible up to £50,000 for infringing on these all too similar London Olympics logos which are "protected from ambush marketing" by the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006
See: "London Olympics Bill - disproportionate advertising monopoly powers sought"
Another bit of disinformation in the press release:
The film was released simultaneously on the internet to thousands of bloggers who signed up to a blog-based online 'tease' campaign.
This implies that people who simplyread blogs or websites are "bloggers", rather than the usual definition of bloggers as people who publish blogs.
We doubt that there are "thousands of bloggers" in London or worldwide who support these awful and embarrassing logo designs, even if they support the 2012 London Olympic Games