Olympic brand falls at first hurdle

Organisers of the 2012 London Olympics must be convinced that someone has painted a big fat target sign on their backsides. Since winning the race to host the Olympics two years ago, the cynical underbelly of British society has wasted no time in giving the whole campaign a good shoeing. Whether voicing their discontent with the rising costs, moaning about the implications for the tax payer, decrying the damage to the environment or scaremongering about dormant WWII bombs under the site, you'd almost think that we didn’t want to host the damn thing in the first place.

But now it’s crunch time. MyCustomer.com ruminated on the importance of ‘the brand’ in our recent monthly focus. And integral to the company brand image is, of course, its logo. Many firms design their logos on the cheap and devote little time or thought to the design and promotion process. Compare this to the likes of Xerox, Lucent and Macintosh who spent over half a million dollars to develop their company logos and then millions more promoting them.

No such mistake was made by the UK Olympics team. Employing the Wolff Olins agency to craft a logo that would convey the message that London 2012 would be “Everybody’s Games”, it took a year to design, and cost a cool £450,000. And yet when it was unveiled this week it was met by widespread derision. And to be fair to the haters, it does look bloody awful.

In the marketing collateral accompanying the launch, the design was justified as being “dynamic modern and flexible…reflecting a brand savvy world where people, especially young people, no longer relate to static logos but respond to a dynamic brand that works with new technology and across traditional and new media networks.”

In some respects it is quite appropriate - in that with its garish, sketchy look, it wouldn’t look out of place daubed on a wall in one of the inner city areas that the initiative hopes to regenerate. A campaign has already been mobilised to encourage a redesign of the logo or revert to the more traditional bid logo.

And now the question remains whether the organisers relent or weather the storm. It’s a thorny issue – should a hasty redesign be implemented in the face of public unpopularity? Or will it be a negative reflection on the overall ‘brand’ if the firm backtracks and proffers a new logo?

There’s a chequered history of logo rebrands in this respect. In 2005, software manufacturer Quark found its new logo hit the skids when its uncanny similarity to a Scottish Arts Council logo was highlighted. By mid-2006 it had waved the white flag and introduced its new new logo.

Others have pressed on regardless. You may recall British Telecom’s ‘trumpet blowing figure’ that was universally panned following its unveiling in 1991. Despite the ire it attracted, BT didn’t begin phasing it out for 12 years. Interestingly, the designers responsible for the prancing piper? A certain Wolff Olins.

Which avenue the London Olympic organisers will take is as yet unclear. But given the enthusiasm to which the British public has taken to the new sport of ‘Olympics bashing’, it seems safe to say that, like the event itself, this story will run and run…

Neil Davey, editor

Find out more about Neil Davey