LONDON | 2012 Olympics Park Development News

[Chad]

I dont like it, seems like humanity is stepping backward....or just Beijing is too far advanced.......

[jak3m]

I disagree

[BenL]

Originally Posted by Flogging Molly

Darjole you dont half talk some crap! I was involved in advertising. Something that simple does not cost £400,000. If they appointed a single company to work on a logo it would've cost no more the £10,00 to design something.

You just don't listen. It's a brand, not just a logo.

[Sexas]

Originally Posted by BenL

You just don't listen. It's a brand, not just a logo.

Maybe you need to ask yourself, why so many people here feel the same way...maybe it is the LOCOG not listening!!

[marrio415]

it's usless arguing because all most people want to do is knock the games in any shape or form.If you don't like it don't post end of.It winds me up when people knock it if it was the world cup coming then everyone would be saying yeah great bring it on.But no not the olympics which is regenerating a deprived area and leaving a lasting legacy the world cup won't bring that apart from some hooligans people do not make sense at times they talk before thinking

[Flogging Molly]

Huh! who says I was involved? I said "I was once involved in advertising" nothing to do with this and many years ago and NO! ... its a logo. Not a brand! The brand is the olympics. NOT THE LOGO! the LOGO cost $800,000 ... THINK ABOUT IT.

The brand will be branded with the LOGO.

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by Flogging Molly

The brand will be branded with the LOGO.

Which shows you know nothing behind this project, nor the concept of branding itself.

Go to the london2012.com website and look beyond the logo - the colours used, the animation, the shapes and the 'style' of the wording, the way text is written and the overall message that London 2012 is trying to get across. In 2012, you'll be instantly able to recognise something to do with London 2012 without the need for the logo.

That is called a 'brand'. That's what Wolf Ollins designed and cost £400,000. The logo was a small part of this. The brand is what encompasses the whole package.

[Dallasbrink]

so there going to have a new logo?

[jak3m]

No! Definitely not.
Read back a couple of posts please.

[Mo Rush]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

Which shows you know nothing behind this project, nor the concept of branding itself.

Go to the london2012.com website and look beyond the logo - the colours used, the animation, the shapes and the 'style' of the wording, the way text is written and the overall message that London 2012 is trying to get across. In 2012, you'll be instantly able to recognise something to do with London 2012 without the need for the logo.

That is called a 'brand'. That's what Wolf Ollins designed and cost £400,000. The logo was a small part of this. The brand is what encompasses the whole package.

As one of the biggest supporters of these Games, I think the brand and logo are shit! Regardless of the price tag or "aim" of the highly awful job they've done. It really is just depends on the opinion of each and every person, but this time round I'm on the side of the large majority that believe that the logo and brand is a total mess up. It might just be unforgettable for all the wrong reasons.

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by Dallasbrink

so there going to have a new logo?

Yes, six months after launching and having the logo plastered over half of London they're going to spend another £400,000 designing another brand.

Jees.

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by Mo Rush

that believe that the logo and brand is a total mess up.

Why why why!? The brand and logo sets out everything 2012 wanted to achieve. It fits the brief PERFECTLY and the fact that every sponsor that has come on board has been able to take the logo and rejig it to their brand guidelines shows how successful a design it is.

I still for the life of me don't understand the whole furore over it. There are far more weirder looking logos out there and many, many more that are far worse (you only have to look at the ones submitted by the public) in terms of flexibility and instant recognition.

I can't grasp why people see it as a mess. Is it the fact it doesn't have a Big Ben on it, or is the fact isn't the Union Jack, or what? The brand colours are vibrant and youthful, the logo has energy and buzz, it's flexible across all media and it projects the image of what the London Olympic Games will be about....so why do so many keep saying it's a disaster?

[jak3m]

I back up everything DarJoLe is saying.

[Mo Rush]

Its great that sponsors and LOCOG are happy, but its still failed to capture the imagination of the people. I can understand that they have tried very hard, but perhaps its all the trying that has resulted in the logo mess. It looks totally out of place and without class in some of those velodrome interior images. I'm sure the venue overlay and branding will be bearable, but from those boards around the construction site, they've messed that up too.

As somebody has said before. Old people designing something they thought the youth would like.

Bear in mind this is just my opinion. They certainly haven't reached any balance between youthfulness, flexibility and "buzz". Heck even the word "London" is too tiny.

Anyway this is an old topic.
[/QUOTE]

[Mo Rush]

image hosted on flickr

image hosted on flickr

[jak3m]

I like the look of the Velodrome, it's simple and is harmonious with the aquatic center.

[Mo Rush]

Originally Posted by jak3m

I like the look of the Velodrome, it's simple and is harmonious with the aquatic center.

thats just the design team that won. not the final design.

[jak3m]

Oh, ok

[Sexas]

Originally Posted by Mo Rush

Its great that sponsors and LOCOG are happy, but its still failed to capture the imagination of the people. I can understand that they have tried very hard, but perhaps its all the trying that has resulted in the logo mess. It looks totally out of place and without class in some of those velodrome interior images. I'm sure the venue overlay and branding will be bearable, but from those boards around the construction site, they've messed that up too.

As somebody has said before. Old people designing something they thought the youth would like.

Bear in mind this is just my opinion. They certainly haven't reached any balance between youthfulness, flexibility and "buzz". Heck even the word "London" is too tiny.

Anyway this is an old topic.

[/QUOTE]

Just from the design point of view, if I don't know anything about it, I will think it is a Sydney or some Australia city Olympic game, because the "zero" look like Australia and the use of font. a normal Joe won't look at this logo and connect it with UK.

Look back at the logo of Sydney, Athens and even the Beijing one (Beijing isn't as good as Sydney and Athens but still not bad), those logo even without the city name you still can guess what county hosting the game...but without the word "London" this logo have no nationality at all.

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by Mo Rush

thats just the design team that won. not the final design.

Er...yes it is.

I took those photos.