The London Olympics 2012 brand
Much was written on the aesthetics of Wolff Olins’ creation of the London Olympics 2012 brand when it was launched in 2007. The controversy no longer rages but having given it over two years worth of the ‘over night’ test, I’m still not a convert.
There’s probably little that I can contribute to the debate other than the fact that Wolff Olins have used a similar aperture technique of placing different images and colours behind the logo for other clients including NYC and Visit London. Old ideas for a new audience, that’s acceptable of course.
www.everyjoe.com/articles/2012-london-olympics-logo-controversy-the-2007-branding-year-in-review/
But, and it’s a big but, is there even a need for an Olympics ‘sub-brand’ for each host country? The Olympic movement has one of the strongest, globally identified brands there is. And it’s reinforced every two years to hundreds of millions of people across the world. Ask yourself these questions. Do you recall the logo for the Moscow, LA or even Rome games? Or the Winter Olympics 2006 in Torino? The answer is probably no.
But you could draw the Olympic symbol from memory couldn’t you? And you probably know that the interlocking circles represent the five continents. The personality of the games, but not the brand, comes through the history, culture and individuality of the host city, enhanced by the sporting heroes of the day – Bolt, Redgrave-Pinsent, Spitz and Owens spring to mind. And that’s an important distinction; the Olympic brand is independent of location. By creating a sub-brand - the offspring challenges the parent and weakens it.
Perhaps a more courageous Wolff Olins might have recommended as the logo for the Olympics 2012 something like this. The Olympic symbol with London 2012 in Helvetica placed underneath. If that was the case we’d probably now be debating whether London 2012 should be in black, blue, green, yellow or red?
Explore posts in the same categories: Brands, Marketing