JR
One of the headlines on the
One
is that Ken Livingstone doesn't want the designers paid.
ST
This is going to be a situation only resolved by whether LOCOG drag out the embrassment for months, or admit now that both the public reception and the health issue cause/require a re-think. Either way, it's going to have to go, IOC rules be damned!
To save face, from an international point of view, I think the earlier they admit the error and back-track the better.
There is no merit in this logo. It's being ridiculed worldwide, and mud sticks. It's an example of us denying any sort of heritage or image worthy of public display.
EDIT:
If they really must keep the £400,000 image of a cartoon character giving a blow-job, at least change the colours, place the city name, olympic rings and year beneath it (in a stylish font). We may then end up with something for the price.
To save face, from an international point of view, I think the earlier they admit the error and back-track the better.
There is no merit in this logo. It's being ridiculed worldwide, and mud sticks. It's an example of us denying any sort of heritage or image worthy of public display.
EDIT:
If they really must keep the £400,000 image of a cartoon character giving a blow-job, at least change the colours, place the city name, olympic rings and year beneath it (in a stylish font). We may then end up with something for the price.
BE
No don't do that. If they do that we'll have just another typical logo. I'm not saying this one is good but if you look at all the home-made logos they're all pretty boring, involving the union jack colours and the same as just about every other Olympic logo.
They do need to change the colours on this one, maybe adjust it slightly. There are ways they could make this work if they get rid of the Wacaday colour scheme.
Ben
Founding member
StuartPlymouth posted:
place the city name, olympic rings and year beneath it (in a stylish font).
No don't do that. If they do that we'll have just another typical logo. I'm not saying this one is good but if you look at all the home-made logos they're all pretty boring, involving the union jack colours and the same as just about every other Olympic logo.
They do need to change the colours on this one, maybe adjust it slightly. There are ways they could make this work if they get rid of the Wacaday colour scheme.
GM
nodnirG kraM
Do you all remember when they re-branded the Bash Street Kids? Or renamed Coco Pops?
IS
Rubbish, it could be pulled at a moment's notice. All it takes is for someone at Locog to phone the IOC and call a press conference
It's not as if millions of items containing the logo have been printed, but soon it will be too late
Brekkie Boy posted:
Nope, like it or not, that's it now! It can't be changed.
Rubbish, it could be pulled at a moment's notice. All it takes is for someone at Locog to phone the IOC and call a press conference
It's not as if millions of items containing the logo have been printed, but soon it will be too late
BR
No don't do that. If they do that we'll have just another typical logo. I'm not saying this one is good but if you look at all the home-made logos they're all pretty boring, involving the union jack colours and the same as just about every other Olympic logo.
Exactly!
The one I quite like is the 2012DON one - but you can guarantee if that was the official one, people be complaining it's basically just handwriting!
Ben posted:
StuartPlymouth posted:
place the city name, olympic rings and year beneath it (in a stylish font).
No don't do that. If they do that we'll have just another typical logo. I'm not saying this one is good but if you look at all the home-made logos they're all pretty boring, involving the union jack colours and the same as just about every other Olympic logo.
Exactly!
The one I quite like is the 2012DON one - but you can guarantee if that was the official one, people be complaining it's basically just handwriting!
RE
That was a straight stunt though - they never had any intention of keeping the "new" BSKs, it was just headline-grabbing.
Yes, that's what happens when "branding consistancy" is put as a high priority. Kellogs had Corn Flakes and the then-new Choco Flakes to go with them, so it seemed like a good idea at the time to line up Rice Krispies and the chocolate version of them in the same way.
Forgetting, obviously, that Coco Pops was probably a stronger brand than RKs...
nodnirG kraM posted:
Do you all remember when they re-branded the Bash Street Kids?
That was a straight stunt though - they never had any intention of keeping the "new" BSKs, it was just headline-grabbing.
nodnirG kraM posted:
Or renamed Coco Pops?
Yes, that's what happens when "branding consistancy" is put as a high priority. Kellogs had Corn Flakes and the then-new Choco Flakes to go with them, so it seemed like a good idea at the time to line up Rice Krispies and the chocolate version of them in the same way.
Forgetting, obviously, that Coco Pops was probably a stronger brand than RKs...
IS
There's been disliked branding and marketing mistakes before, but I've never known anything this universally disliked. Even New Coke was accepted for a bit, the backlash only came later
Normally this sort of dislike is from a small but loud section, but this is almost universally disliked. Those that do like it seem to be ambivalent at best.
The big diffrence between the Olympics and things like Coke and Mars is that there's no financial disadvantage to it being unliked. Unless it causes the withdrawal of backing or sponsors, it's going to take a heck of backlash to force them to change it
StuartPlymouth posted:
Marketing companies have made mistakes before "New Coke" in the 90s and "Mars" (only this year).
There's been disliked branding and marketing mistakes before, but I've never known anything this universally disliked. Even New Coke was accepted for a bit, the backlash only came later
Normally this sort of dislike is from a small but loud section, but this is almost universally disliked. Those that do like it seem to be ambivalent at best.
The big diffrence between the Olympics and things like Coke and Mars is that there's no financial disadvantage to it being unliked. Unless it causes the withdrawal of backing or sponsors, it's going to take a heck of backlash to force them to change it