Long overdue post about the London Olympic 2012 logo.

When this launched I was on holiday. But, these days you can access the world media anywhere. Email on the move, internet on the train, news on the go, the Daily Mail in the hotel lobby.

I didn't blog about it at the time and I kind of thought my views would change with the hindsight that a few weeks gives you. I don't think my opinion has changed, nor has that of anyone else. I was actually invited to the launch event and lined up as a media commentator, but I couldn't make it due to the holiday pictured above. Given what I'm about to say, I think I'd have been on the TV all week.

I like the logo.

As Bono said, "there's been a lot of talk, maybe, maybe too much talk". He was talking about a song, I'm talking about a logo. For my money the best commentary on the whole thing was written by Mark over at the CR Blog.

So let's recap a little. David, really, really hates it. Claire Beale hates it. Beeker's receptionist is worried, Michael Johnson is crossing his fingers and Coudal Partners  like what it isn't. Armin likes it and Bowbrick loves it. The Government isn't for turning and Wolff Olins don't ask to be liked. Which is just as well really. There's been a lot of talk about what could have been with, really, the only elegant suggestion being Daniel Eatock's. Although I doubt very much they'd let you do that with the rings.

In the Dead Tree Press the Daily Mail suggested it might grow on you with that special Daily Mail cynicism, the Tory Olympic spokesman called it "hideous" and asked "what do the rejected ones looks like?". Stephen Bailey (yes you read that right, Stephen Bailey) called it a "puerille mess, an artistic flop and a commercial scandal".

Before we continue I think that everyone agrees the 'london'' type is horrible. It is.

Mark's article is called, "Well, at least it doesn't have Big Ben on it". That's a valid point. How many 'British' 'Cool Britannia' 'London' logos have we seen in the Blair Years that have relied upon hackneyed, dated imagery of Big Ben, the Union Jack or Tower Bridge? Likewise how much Gill Sans has been expended in trying to recapture Beck's brilliance? To the rest of the world (and I mean the rest of all the world not just Europe and America) London and the United Kingdom do not mean Tower Bridge and Big Ben. Get over it.

Happily the logo also doesn't feature any jumping, ambiguous androgynous eunuchs like these terrible, lame things do. How the hell these 'bent hairpin designs' convey Olympic spirit is beyond me.

Suitably in this user generated world, hundreds of logo's have been sent in to the media. Most, if not all of them including jingoistic symbols and bent hairpins.

But it's not just the amateurs who are having a try, here's Tyler Brulé on BBC Breakfast slagging off the logo.

And here he is displaying (on very weak looking A4 foam core boards) some ideas his team had "knocked up" the night before. They were shocking as well.

Which brings me on to a wider point. Whether you like the logo or not the way our industry has responded to this has been dreadful. Using terms like "knocking up" on BBC air time don't help designers win more boardroom time. Not liking the logo is one thing, but comments like "£400k? My kid could have done better..." do every working designer a disservice. We all know that it's not a case of emailing Seb an eps and an invoice for £400k. We all know it's a poisoned chalice of a brief, we all know that £400,000 will include miles of implementation and we all know that the ad agencies and the management consultants are charging twice that.

London's Mayor Ken Livingstone even said he'd ask for his money back. If that's the case Ken, I'd like to have a word about a few elements of my council tax bill that I'm not entirely happy with.

A friend of mine used to work for a large accountancy practice in the north of England. He used to audit the books of several Premiership clubs and he reckoned that almost all football transfers were worth about a third of what the press had claimed the fee was. I've always thought it was the same for branding agency fees.

I haven't seen (and I may have missed it) anyone begin to defend the industry and it's processes. Next time you're working with a client who demands his money back after months of hard work, or disputes your already small fees - you've only got yourselves to blame, I'm afraid.

History is not a helpful reference point either.

Sure, the Munich one is gorgeous and so is the Mexico one, but that was 1972 and '19 something I can't quite read'. The thing that worries me is that left to most of the London based, Guardian reading, ironic tshirt wearing design community we would have ended up with another, yes another, HelveticaMunichWankFest, lauded by the design press and irrelevant to everyone else. Meaningless, stylistic rubbish. Graphic design at its worst.

I think it's important to remember, but not essential, that logo is aimed at a younger audience. Generally, the younger you get the less you hate it. For the purpose of this post I asked my 16 year old niece what she thought of it, "Err, it's OK. Not that bothered, really. Why? Did you do it?".

So, I'm pleased that we don't have any Helvetica. Pleased that we don't have any Tower Bridges or any Big Bens. Pleased that Gill Sans hasn't been used again and pleased that some people don't like it.

What we have is the bravest Olympic logo in decades. A logo with an undeniable energy and  an anti-establishment feeling that would be refreshing for any brand but is like an intravenous 10,000 volts for an Olympic logo.

Last, but not least, take a look at Terence Conran talking about the opening of the Royal Festival Hall in 1951. Another big public design project, another huge amount of money and another set of shocking headlines. I bet most of the people who hate the logo would enjoy a glass of wine on the balcony of the RFH.

OK, OK, that's a building and not a logo, but the point is that these huge design projects will always get negative press.

So there you go, I like it.  Special thanks to all the people who have written in asking what I thought of the logo, I was strangely touched by all of that.

Comments

[Joe Clark]

You haven’t explained *why you like it*, only that you do, that the published alternatives are naff, and that it was probably worth the money.

[Bureau L'Imprimante]

Anti-establishment? What has it to do with the olympic games?

[Charles Frith]

I said something similar here Ben.

http://charlesfrith.blogspot.com/2007/06/lemon.html

[Will]

Bureau L'Imprimante - I think you've answered your own question.

It has very little obviously to do with the Olympic games - hence, anti-establishment.

[Caspian]

If you are designing it for the kids/future/mobile (and as yet unknown media) one does need to consider the well known effects of strobing lights. Whether or not is actually affected some people is one thing, but it did give solid ammunition to the logo-haters to jump up and down. Personally I think it is quite fun and the interactive version works. Yes the word ‘london‘ is awful but with all the press the icon has received (and will continue to receive) I think they could loose that bit completely and everyone would still know what/where it was.

[Richard]

Nice one Ben.

(Still not saying much about it myself).

[Lebowski]

Nice one Ben. I like it too. It's kind of like something you'd see on a CSS or Gossip record sleeve. Which is good.

And if the Daily Mail hate it chances are it's probably alright.

[davidthedesigner]

Ben, you know I really, really do hate the thing. But just one question: how does this dreadful logo and its graffito 'styling' relate with 'doing it for real' http://noisydecentgraphics.typepad.com/design/2006/07/advice_always_d.html ?

[Freeza]

I do like it also, but i just dont think its the right solution for the olympics.

[Rob Mortimer]

Thank fuck for that. I was worried I was the only one.

If anything, the fact that people are debating it so passionately already makes it a success.

Its meant for the kids who will represent us. The 12-17 year olds in the east end. It HAS to piss people off or they wouldnt identify with it.

But surely even the most jingoistic of Daily Mail commentators would agree that better than all the blue and red bland ideas; doing something brave and unique is totally British; and captures both the Olympic and nation spirit.

But yes, the London type is awful.

[Felix]

I'm glad that there are no running men, or outlines of the Eye or Big Ben, but what I hate about the logo is the way it tries to engage kids by cynically emulating the current (and clearly shortlived) nu-rave scene, which I suppose would be fine for a logo that would be used for a year at the most, but not for something that has to last until 2012 and that has to appeal to other people, not just teenagers.

[Nathan]

I returned from a trip abroad recently and was confronted with this logo on the tube from Heathrow. My first reaction was surprise, it was brave, colorful and different. I was surprised that the powers that be didn't go with something bland, meaningless and nationalistic. Then the outcry, everyone is talking about it, most people hate it, some love it. I have slowly fallen into the latter category for the following reasons:

1. I have seen it on a T-shirt and it is actually something I would wear, it's not conservative, it's not bland, it's fresh, abstract and memorable.

2. The grid this thing works on is insane. There are endless permutations of abstract patterns to be derived from it all tied back to an instantly recognisable theme.

3. I've seen the initial usage manuals showing the brand extension and it works on various levels: Motion, print, small/big, corporate, 3D, etc. It's much more thought out than has been revealed thus far and an entire type set has been designed around the 'london' type. The alternatives proposed via news outlets, bloggers, amateurs, and press hungry agencies are singular marks with absolutely not even an inkling of thought towards anything involving brand extension.

4. The cost. £400,000. I hate to say it but Wolff Ollins probably 'lost' money on this. They had a staff of 60 working on it for a year. 60 x salaries or hourly rates (big swinging dick agency rates) of even part time labor shows that the UK got it's monies worth and if you think that the logo is 'it' it's not see 3. In regards to Ken: What was the olympics supposed to cost in the first place? £2.1 billion. What's it up to now? £9 billion. Whose paying for it? Londoners are. Will the final price be more than that? Abso-fuckin-lutely. Should I thank you personally Ken or that over-inflated head floating above London - you know - the one with that massive shit-eating-grin on it's face.

5. It's non-nationalistic and contains no facile phallic or yonic symbolism. It cares nothing for jingoism of any sort. The London that I know and am proud of.

6. I can't wait to see the pictograms.

7. At least people stopped talking about Madeleine.

8. Hate is love not yet understood.

9. Pink probably wasn't the best colour to show it off in. People react to colour first and non-designer colour averse types can sink a ship before it's left harbor. I've had mockups dismissed outright, no consideration of structure or functionality because people cannot, for whatever reason, get past the vagaries of colour it can become the only thing they 'see' - "Sorry, I didn't know that your grandmother killed by an Orange truck."

10. One of the people involved with the released and supposedly spasm triggering motion pieces is ironically epileptic.

11. It should appeal to kids and teenagers first foremost as they are the future olympians. Screw the adults, we're boring.

PS: I posted this on design observer previously, though this has been expanded upon.

[Tony]

Livingstone was also at a press conference a week or two ago praising the logo (possibly because it was in front of the IOC representatives who had come to visit the stadia being built) so we should discount his opinion entirely!

[Drew]

Elequently put Ben/Nathan. Not withstanding the London type, this logo is extremely well positioned to fulfil the 'it grows on you' role. And yes, the pink version is the most publicised because it's the easiest target. I can't imagine the balls it took to push this through the horrible beurocratic nightmare that must have been involved in the launch.

[Ben]

I'm enjoying this. Some great questions/points have been raised. I'll try and answer them soon.

[davidthedesigner]

"7. At least people stopped talking about Madeleine."

Nathan nails it (see above).

[John Dodds]

But what about the branding nonsense that was spouted in the accompanying press release - it was that which really annoyed me.

And, unless I missed it, you haven't addressed the interesting aspect of the design - namely that the sponsors are going to be able to add their own colours and create corporate versions of the logo. Does that in any way diminish the impact of the logo?

[narcis]

I shouldn't have any objection, everybody is free to have their own opinions and tastes... But I'm still shocked... I can't believe that London, my reference of design, reason why I moved here, has chosen this S***.

I agree with David, as he says (and I took the licence to "copy / paste"):

"I have a message for Mr Wolff, Mr Olins and the late Mr Landor: you were once proud to call yourselves designers, but somewhere along the line you decided that business was more important than design; and so you allowed the companies that bear your names to become 'brand businesses'; and in the process you sold your souls."

We are graphic design, and yes... some times we have to do Graphic prostitution, but trust me... That would be one good dream project for most of us...

We communicate, I can't see even a shape of a logo... to me it's random square stains, while at least Barcelona'92 (which I confess I LIKE, and is not because I'm from there...) express the spirit of sport or Olympics... And I'm not really fan of Tries (the barcelona's logo).

Oh, well, as you say... I'm talking too much maybe... or maybe I shouldn't be that worried... but I love my job...

Just to finish... Couple of things that I have seen and heard, re-adaptation of the logo (http://www.fotolog.com/bluekiwi/22845210). And than someone else said: " it looks like Lisa Simpson giving a bl** job".

Well... Sorry for that.

[Mat]

"It's kind of like something you'd see on a CSS or Gossip record sleeve. Which is good."

Which means it will look amusingly dated in about 5 years.

[Ben Ward]

Dislike has faded to utter indifference for me. The ‘London’ text is still appalling and will be the lasting flaw that I suspect I never manage to forgive.

I completely agree about the media ‘here's one I made in 20 minutes’ reaction, though. It's going to hurt for a while that the industry is devalued like that. Of course I'm sure that those on popping up on the tele just spied the chance for the self promotion and opportunity to undercut their competitor.

One slight correction: As wildly popularist as Ken was being with his ‘I wouldn't pay for it’ comment, he was actually referring to the epilepsy-inducing animation, *not* the logo itself. He was arguing that because the company producing the video had not met well established legal requirements they should not be paid. Either he or the reporting media decided to munge that argument into the general ‘Ugh! Logo!’ sentiment though.

I think my apathy reflects the logo as a failure for me though; all this talk of getting young people energised and inspired has fallen rather flat to this 23-year old, and I think it stinks of someone trying too hard to empathise with youth.

Meh, we're stuck with it.

[Ben]

I wasn't sure about posting this - I worried it might be too late. Your brilliant comments mean I was right to post.

Joe - I like it because it provokes a reaction, it's different, it's leading and not following, it's flexible and it's vibrant. I'll admit that I don't love it, I only like it. But I like it for those reasons.

Caspian & Felix - I don't think it was designed for the kids. It's aimed more at them than a 60 year old for sure, but I don't think it's exclusively aimed at children. It can't be.

David - I don't think we're going to reach a consensus on this one! Regards 'doing it for real' I don't think it is supposed to emulate graffiti. I think it's more a series of graphic shapes a bit like very early Malcolm Garrett or Neville Brody. Regards the 'Curate's Egg', I hate the type but it doesn't spoil the whole effect for me.

Freeza - The Olympics is (supposed to be) a politically neutral, forward thinking organisation and exactly the sort of people who should be pushing the boundaries of all types of design. They're not bound by shareholders and their reach is truly global.

Nathan - Regarding point 9, that's very true. I've seen it in other colours and pink is the worst variation.

John - I love the fact that sponsors can add their own colours. I saw a Lloyds TSB version the same day it was launched and it looked great. I love that flexibility and I think that will add to the spirit. So, no, I don't think that diminishes the impact of the logo.

[Ben]

Has anyone noticed that the '0' is the shape of London?

[Rob Mortimer]

I also liked the Lloyds TSB version, I thought the more subtle colours looked good on it.

[Charles Frith]

Ben. Erm yes. Think it is isn't it?

[Alex Parrott]

Is it London?

Ive been thinking, since I first saw the logo, the the shapes must represent something (other than reading 2012) – they are far too individual to be random shapes, and the fact that both the 2's are different suggest they havn't been taken from an exhisting typeface.

I think the '0' looks like Australia, and with a skewed look at the worlds continents (which the 5 olympic rings represent) the first '2' could be America and the '1' Africa. Could the small diamond be Europe?