Thanks gav_tom for posing that. it reinforces, but officially, that Lisa Simpson thingy we all been seeing, when it animates. Oh dear. No one has yet admitted it's a disaster - bar the mayor. Here's hoping the public can be kept interested in it enough to see the logo's demise.
CAN they now? Serious question - sponsors, starting with Lloyds TSB, have started rolling out London 2012 branding based on this logo already, and presumably they and the IOC have been given some sort of commitment that This Is It.
Contractually, they might not be able to make any major changes now.
I suppose Lloyds TSB would have a say considering they've probably paid the money that created to logo.
Don't think it's too late though, if the design is tarnished enough that it will have a negative effect on the Olympics (and I think that is starting to happen) then they'll have no choice. There's plenty of time before the bulk of the branding gets rolled out
Let us hope. It may be that the logo will not be changed because it cannot, but should we leave that to chance and be defeatist? Then there would be no reason for any debate, and no reason for the current petition against the logo.
This has been publically ridiculed on such a scale that it is really difficult to ignore. And there is every reason for such an outcry; people are genuinely embarrassed about this logo and want something to be genuinely proud of. There are clearly faults with this design (still as well as animated), and in my eyes numerous ones at that, which suggests completely the wrong things and IMHO has woefully understated London and the Olympics.
I'd like to see a worse logo that someone had to cough up £400K+ for. Either this was a case of the wrong agency for the job or a poor brief. A very valid point was made that while there are talks in Parliament for a "Britain Day" to promote british identity, this 2012 logo makes no attempt to symbolize that in any way whatsoever.
Just been musing on this in my head but (don't bollock me if it's been mentioned, I'm not wading through the 7 or so pages I haven't read to check) what if this is merely a diversionary tactic for some other screw-up or just plain out and out drumbeating for the games? Why the change of heart? It's just recognising the screwup that is a "nice but not right for its purpose" logo. I'm not being hypocritical to rate it then trash it a day later, it's still good but not for the Olympics.
Onto the idea. Make a throwaway, terrible on a C3NE proportion logo which would receive bad press irregardless due to the non-Olympicness, general crudeness and the £400,000 price tag someone shrewdly added to it for effect. Knowing people go nuts when a lot of money is spent on what they see erroneously as only one single and quite cheap to boot thing is a PR dream in disguise, playing that alone will gather you the necessary "vituperative Niagara" for the next part. Wait a bit until you're very much aware public opinion of it is at it's lowest and therefore best. At that point throw your hands in air, admit defeat partially and unveil the actual, not too dissimilar but vastly better logo a while later. Any bad press would be immediately forgotten in a wave of praise for their brand spank, boring but familiar logo and also the great unwashed remember that there's an Olympics happening here in five years or something. Sounds like a winner, an expensive one sure but this is the Olympics we're talking about!
I'm wishing that Paris won it, so that we dont have to be embarressed about the naff thing they call the logo. I am wondering whether the logo will become like the BBC One dancers that we hated, but where sad when they went.
A very valid point was made that while there are talks in Parliament for a "Britain Day" to promote british identity, this 2012 logo makes no attempt to symbolize that in any way whatsoever.
Anything concerned with this pathetic "Britain Day" idea can never be considered a "valid point". Why this pointless search for a "British Identity" that doesn't exist - that's the point of multi-cultural Britain is it not?
The 2012 logo shouldn't represent Britain - the bid wasn't based around Britain, it was based around the World - and therefore a symbol of the empire wouldn't do the games any favours.
Two questions -
If this logo hadn't cost £400,000+ would there be such an outcry?
And vice versa, if this logo had been to everyones liking, would anyone care about the £400,000 price tag?
P.S. MPs have no right to comment on money being wasted on logos like this when every year they give themselves a pay rise which costs far more than £400,000 to the tax payer!
If this logo hadn't cost £400,000+ would there be such an outcry?