Olympic Logo Controversy

The London 2012 Olympic officials unveiled the new logo for the summer games just a few days ago. I have to say it certainly is a bold attempt at something new, definitely bucking recent trends for creating a mark for the global sporting event.

From a design standpoint, I can appreciate how the logo is trying to be more of a “brand” and promote versatility in it’s usage and better intergrate itself with the Para Olympics. At the same time, I can’t necessarily blame the general distain it’s received within hours of it’s introduction to the British public for it’s schizophrenic confusion. It’s such a contrast to what’s expected of a Olympic Games logo, that I’m not surprised by the overall knee-jerk reaction to it. However, I think it’s good to challenge the audience and mix things up a bit. Yet how far do you go with that? It took me so long on my own to finally realize the jagged grafitti-like logo was saying “2012″ that to me, fundamentally speaking, is a bit problematic.

Apparently, the focus group tests that were conducted indicated that this style/look is what a young demographic (Western based society, and mostly British) is currently gravitating towards, which begs the question: “Why are the London games catering primarily to a young audience?”

Well, I think I can understand where the general marketing strategy is here: get the kids hooked and the adults (who have the main reserves of purchasing power) will follow. But don’t the adults deserve something to enjoy too from this “brand” that’s simultaneously using the tagline line “It’s Everybody’s Games”? of which this will undoubtly be plastered everywhere for the next next five years? If it’s “everybody’s games” then how come a huge core of the Olympic audience feels left out? And certainly it can’t help matters much either when you hear reports about how the logo is causing seizures amongst epileptics.

The sad truth is, after a hundred years of the modern Olympics games, the global event has become much less about the sole competitive display of athletic brillance & political goodwill of each participating country as it was intended. Instead, it’s now primarily become a vehicle for global marketing opportunities for the benifit of big business. Who cares if the players are doping up and cheating their way to the finish line so long as sponsors make a huge profit on their investments and product placements? I think the general public is weary of this along with the overall undermining of the spirit of the Olympic games and it’s reaction to the new 2012 London Olympics logo is partly a reflection of that, if only a subconscious one.

(Not to mention the fact that the cities of the world that could most benefit from the boost to their economy and infrastructure have all failed, most notably cities from countries in South America and Africa.)

I’m not sure how much to protest the logo myself, both in the realms of it’s social-economic and aesthetic aspects, but certainly it’s fair to say at this point it has already generated a substainstal amount of “excitement” since it’s unveiling. If all else fails, at least the British still have the 2012 host city bid logo to fall back on incase the decrying public become too much to bear.

And there’s always the Olympic graphics and values of yesteryear to reflect upon too.

Popularity: 14%

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...