The London 2012 Olympic logo – were the critics wrong?
The logo for the London 2012 Summer Olympic Games was first unveiled on the 4th June 2007 to much criticism from the media, design community and public in general. Now exactly three years on, enough time has passed for the logo and brand to become established, so I think it’s a good time to ask – were the critics wrong?
The logo was created by Wolff Olins, a branding agency with offices in London, New York and Dubai, for a reported £400,000. The initial reaction in newspapers, on television and the internet appeared to be very negative, with all manner of insults used to describe the logo. But was part of the reason for that response due to the often quoted cost involved, which of course usually covers far more than people imagine. Or was it that many took offence with purely it’s look, often being described as childish and not representative of London. It contained neither sporting images nor pictures of London landmarks, instead aiming to be “unconventionally bold, deliberately spirited and unexpectedly dissonant, echoing London’s qualities of a modern, edgy city.” – Wolff Olins.
The Paralympics logo (left) and four official colour combinations for the main logo.
The London 2012 logo was created in several colours to allow for a wide range of applications, and for the first time the same basic shape was also used for the Paralympic Games so that the branding would be consistent between the two. In my opinion, it’s this branding that’s played a major part in how the logo is now viewed, with my own reaction to the logo being different to what it was when I first saw it.
Various uses and implementations of the London 2012 logo by Wolff Olins.
The logo can be used in a variety of ways, such as being shown in a solid colour, as an outline or allowing an image to fill that outline. Also the custom typeface is so distinct that even when used on its own, it can be easily associated with the games. I think this flexibility was a major factor in the design of the logo and has really helped establish the overall identity.
Personalised versions of the logo, used by official partners.
The logo was designed so that is could be easily personalised for official partners of the games, incorporating their corporate colours and with taglines relevant to their business. I personally believe in this regard the logo works extremely well due to the shape being highly recognisable, so no matter what colour it is, or what it’s placed alongside, a quick glimpse and instantly I know what it is and more importantly, what is represents.
I would love to know your thoughts on this, how successful did you think the logo would be when you first saw it and after seeing how it’s been implemented over the past three years, have you changed your mind? If your opinion has changed, whether positively or negatively, what caused that change? And whenever you see the logo now, does its design cross your mind, or do you just think of the London 2012 Olympic Games? Please share your views by adding a comment below. PG
Did you enjoy this article? If so, please Tweet or Recommend it (or both).
And most of all, I'd love to hear your thoughts on what's been discussed in this article, so please share your views by adding a comment below.
I believe something can be sufficiently branded despite a design not being very representative. Do I think London when I see that? No, and I don’t see how many people would. There really is no connection between the design and London whatsoever. The question is, though, is: Is that important? Is the fact that London is not perceived by the logo a bad thing?
I don’t really have the answer to that question, but that’s an important question that could be discussed.
Because you are absolutely right in that the logo is very flexible. It fits into the corporate identities seamlessly. It will be very effective in representing the Olympics, but not necessarily representing London.
In my opinion, this logo would be PERFECT for Jamaica or Africa. Just look at the BP implementation.
Joseph McCullough said:
This is very true, there are many logos out there that have nothing to do with the business they represent, instead relying on brand association, which takes time to build. Although Wolff Olins weren’t attempting a literal representation of London they were, going by statements they made, trying to represent London’s qualities. I can see what they were trying to achieve and to be honest, I’d rather this approach than the usual olympic style of logo we could have ended up with. That being said, I do see what you mean about the logo being perfect for a Jamaican or African city, though maybe they too would want a logo that’s unexpected, as the London 2012 logo was.
I am a fan of the logo, for the most part. I like how it breaks out of the norm a bit, when compared to other Olympic logos and as you mentioned, it is easily recognizable and versatile. I also like the use of shapes, they provide a comfort in the way they fit together.
There is one thing that does bother me, however. At first glance I saw an “R” on the bottom. Now, every time I revisit the logo, it catches my eye and fights with the Olympic rings.
Just my $.02
Ryan Cowles said:
I saw the “R” also, surely the last two should have been the same as the first, or at least almost the same. The difference makes it stand out and then I question what it is, so it seems like a strange decision to me.