The negative response to the 2012 London Olympic Games logo had brand experts predicting that it a very short future. But maybe...just maybe, London has got it spot on, says Richard Brass

When the 2012 logo was unveiled in June, there were two main comments. The first was that the new emblem was dynamic, modern and flexible, reflecting a brand-savvy world and set to become a visual icon. The second was: ‘What’s Lisa Simpson doing to that man?’ To be honest, the first judgement was not a response from the public, but was in fact what the Olympic organisers said when they unveiled the logo, but it’s about the only positive comment I could find. The real responses ranged all the way from heavily sarcastic to disgustedly indignant, and the practically unanimous view was that the logo was ugly, meaningless, slightly disturbing and a monumental waste of money.

It’s not hard to see the point. Whatever the logo may have going for it, it isn’t pretty. A jagged combination of shapes and angles, it arguably doesn’t even get across the figure 2012 unless you know what you’re looking for, and the fact that the promotional video caused epileptic fits didn’t help much either. Faced with the potential embarrassment of scrapping £400,000 worth of work and suffering a capitulation that could overshadow the long build-up to the games, the organisers wheeled out the big guns to defend the logo and shout down the public outcry. The logo was staying, and that was that.

That was a better result than some recent rebranding exercises. High street banks, political parties and major corporations have suffered from the ‘it seemed like a good idea at the time’ syndrome.

However, this hasn’t scared potential suitors. Lloyds TSB, believed to have paid £80 million to become the first UK sponsor of the Olympics, announced its delight at the logo. Supportive branding experts came up with the argument that the criticism was misplaced because the jagged squiggle was not in fact a logo, but a brand, which was a different thing altogether.

Like it or not, the logo is an original image that has drawn a huge amount of comment and been seen by many more people around the world than would ever have seen it if it had been a more conventional effort.

And that would have been a very reasonable argument if the organisers hadn’t called it a, er, logo. But whatever you call it, the key question is what the logo / brand / squiggle is supposed to do, apart from act as proof that the hat, coffee mug or set of steak knives you’re about to pay too much for is officially licensed.

The purpose, surely, is to produce something noteworthy and memorable, which encapsulates some of the character of the event and adds value to the merchandise. And perhaps the best way to test the London logo is to compare it to its peers. Remember the logo from the Athens Olympics in 2004? How about Sydney in 2000? What about the logo for next year’s games in Beijing, announced with much razzmatazz four years ago?

Unless you were closely involved with any of these events, the odds are you won’t remember any of the logos, and that would be perfectly reasonable. They were all largely unadventurous, safe, inoffensive and soon forgotten. The same can’t be said about the London logo, even at this early stage.


Indeed a number of branding agencies and IP experts have spoken out in support of the logo and praised its dynamism, simplicity and uniqueness. Because of its quirkiness, many IP professionals are also suggesting that there is a good chance that it will be registrable for the many classes of goods and services needed.

Like it or not, the logo is an original image that has drawn a huge amount of comment and been seen by many more people around the world than would ever have seen it if it had been a more conventional effort. Familiarity has bred fondness for much uglier items.

As for the logo’s effect on the value of merchandise, that’s a given. I for one will be snapping up an official 2012 London Olympics gadget at the first available opportunity, because its curiosity value is assured. And if, after all, they do change their minds and choose another logo, it will be worth a fortune.


This article first appeared in IP Review, issue 19

User Comments

Post a comment