Oh, ick, you’re right. What IS that?

Well, my first reaction when I saw it was of surprise but the more I see it the more I like it. It sort of reminds me of some of the new wave album designs in the late 70’s, early 80’s - an aesthetic which seems to have come back in fashion in the past few years.

Here’s some positive reactions that came up on RSS feeds:

http://coudal.com/olympics.php
http://www.serifpublishing.com/?p=2370

But, let’s face it, any logo that cost half a mil would’ve been disapproved by the mainstream media because, like everything else, they get fixated on the monetary value. I wonder if it cost £24 to produce it would’ve garnered the same reaction? Probably not.

The story is not about the design but about the money, because these people, the so-called critics, are artistically challenged and wouldn’t know a good design if it bit them on the ar$e.

These are the same sort of people, who some years ago, misunderstood the political nuances of the lyrics to the Sex Pistols’ ‘God Save The Queen’.

We shouldn’t blame the designer. He or she will have just delivered to a brief. Tell a designer to make something young and edgy and they’ll come back with the sort of lines and colours that currently pass for young and edgy.

It’s the brief that’s flawed, so blame the strategists. 2012 is supposed to be for the country as a whole, and they’re marketing it like a product for 15-25 year olds who listen to Klaxons (the band, not the type of siren). The people that really need to be won over to the event are a completely different demographic, and this will only alienate them further.

Yeah but those 15 - 25 year olds will be 20 - 30 in 2012

It’s the Olympics, it sorta sells itself. People will be own over despite the strength of a logo.

And besides… the logo has already been a massive success, just look at the furore it caused - you can’t buy that sort of press.

The next thing we’ll be reading about in the tabloids is people throwing bricks through their TV screens in utter disgust

Hmm. They’ll be older in 2012 but they’ll still be only a fraction of the audience 2012 needs to reach - they’ll also have outgrown this sort of design, which will date very quickly.

I mean you’re right that this isn’t the end of the world, but it is a wasted opportunity.

Also I don’t think ‘any publicity is good publicity’ works for every product. Remember the reports that Athens wasn’t going to be ready for the 2004 games? I can guarantee you the press officers weren’t going, ‘at least people are talking about us’.

Nathan, fair points but you know what? As someone who lived in the proposed Olympic area until recently, I reckon they’ve got bigger problems on their plate than a logo, and whether people like it or not.

There’s only 5 years to go and how long did it take to build Wembley, on a piece of land that already housed a stadium? Look what happened there.

Hey, you’re not thinking what I am thinking are you? The logo is just a smokescreen to divert attention from more serious problems?

Ha. Yes, I’m with you on that Garri!

[...] Parece que el logo diseñado para los Juegos Olímpicos de Londres 2012 no ha tenido muy buena acogida. [...]

It’s a disgrace.

Thats all Im going to say on the matter

Rohan, are you going to throw a brick at your plasma TV screen in utter disgrace?

Garri, dont you think that people have the right to air there own opinions?

You seem to give your opinion and then mock people who air their opinions.

BTW, its horrible, the BBC had some nicer designs last night on the news.

Sorry Simon, I thought I was free to mock. After all, people are mocking the logo.

So the BBC were talking about it on the news then? A few days late, eh? Really important stuff. Don’t tell me, the angle was the the fact it cost 400k?

The logo is even more successful than I realised and when you look at the high profile event it’s publicising, 400k is looking like a bargain. You couldn’t even buy a broom cupboard in Clapham for that