You may remember my earlier post on the competition to choose a logo for the country and the scandal surrounding it. Well, the competition has been finally cancelled and it might be relaunched some time soon. In this respect, I even started to believe that the situation was of no precedent and unique. I was wrong.
In 2012, London will host the Olympic Games, which is a big deal. This entails an influx of visitors and their cash to the city, not to mention newly-built infrastructure. Last June the logo for the 2012 London Olympics was unveiled and caused a whole lot of public debate, criticism, and even online petitions.
Six months later, in January this year I still read an article in the FT about the logo and the opposition against it. It's interesting how an emblem can cause so much reaction, comments and discussions.
The rationale behind choosing the graffiti-style logo for the 2012 London Olympics (pictured below) is the ambition to engage the multi-cultural young audience in Britain. "...to create a Games for everyone, where everyone is invited to take part", as the official 2012 London Olympics website says.
The style and colours of the logo are a matter of taste. But I especially liked the commotion around the logo and how, for example, the media accept the new product. A quote from the same FT article:
Martin Lambie-Nairn, chairman of the Lambie-Nairn firm, which has rebranded UK broadcasters Channel 4 and the BBC, thinks the Olympic launch was always likely to be controversial, particularly to a UK media critical of the rising cost of the games. “Launching brand identities to journalists is always very dangerous,” he says. “You show something for three minutes, and people go, ‘Is that it?’ The only thing the media is really interested in is the cost.”
If you are interested to read more about the 2012 London Olympics logo, here's an interesting column by Tyler Brûlé, editor-in-chief of Monocle.
No comments:
Post a Comment