Lessons from London

0

Eleven days removed from what has become the main identity event of this year, a hazy cloud of confusion filled with swirling particulates of disappointment, seizure causing agents, and general unease continues to pollute the blogosphere. Here is a quick snapshot of the London 2012 logo aftermath from our perspective.

Trashing Wolff Olins
Various sources are reporting, in an alarming development, that nobody had seen previous work produced by the Brand Consultants! Whether this is pure conjecture or not, it seems like a meaningless allegation. If you did have a chance to look through Wolff Olins’ portfolio of previously executed brands, you would have only noticed an obvious trend of professionalism.

identity work by Wolff Olins

The work produced by the agency is professional, reputable and harbours no dangerous warnings that you may see a monstrous and garish result through a professional alliance with their organization. Perhaps if you had viewed samples of their work, you would have seen quiet, reserved, and dignified wordmarks for serious corporations and had second thoughts of asking for something monstrous and garish. If anything, Wolff Olins looks very much like a victim of poor choices by Olympic organizers involving the wrong people in the process or commissioning an outrageous concept all together.

Here to Stay
It seems as if everyone in the whole world wants to be a Olympics logo expert. Apparently, even Elbowruminations is considered to have qualified experts on the matter! This desire has caused a great uprising of petition waving critics requesting the logo to be recalled. The BBC and other websites have sprung up with public competitions for a new logo to be chosen from online submissions. Included in these submissions were concepts combining bowler hats, clocks, bridges, and other British paraphanalia adorned with ribbons and rings.

London Logos

In the political arena, MP’s have signed a motion to have the logo re-thought. Links to terrorism have also been suggested by online pranksters. Despite the hoopla, for economic reasons and in order to avoid looking foolish, the London Olympic committee will stand by their decision and we will see this logo in 2012. It will be interesting to see what kind of plans Brian Boylan’s people have for the identity, and what we will be saying in five years.

What are these?

Bad Publicity is Good for Business
Even as a result of posting our humble thoughts on the issue, we saw a major spike in our web traffic the day the logo was released and significant effects in the days proceeding. It’s obvious, everyone hates the logo. It’s also quite obvious that everyone wants to talk about it as well. It makes us wonder if outright horror was the best thing that could have happened for the London Olympic Committee.

Thoughts?