An online petition, created through the Go Petition website, urging organisers to scrap it now has just under 33,000 signatures and medical experts say an animated version of it used on TV and online campaigns could trigger epileptic fits.
Politicians have also spoken out against the logo, with Mayor of London Ken Livingstone criticising the failure to carry out health checks on promotional activity, and Philip Davies MP , culture, media and sport select committee member, tabling a motion in the House of Commons calling for the logo to be axed.
Speaking on BBC London 94.9 last night, Livingstone, who was not involved in decisions surrounding the design, said: "If you employ someone to design a car and it kills you, you're pretty unhappy about that. If you employ someone to design a logo for you and they haven't done a basic health check you have to ask what they do for their money."
The controversial logo took Wolff Olins around a year to create at an estimated cost of £400,000. It replaced the previous logo, which featured the words "London 2012" intertwined with ribbons in the shape of the Thames.
Odds on the logo being scrapped are now 10-1, according to bookmakers William Hill, but the organising committee is adamant it is here to stay, although the animated campaign has been pulled and will be re-edited.
In a statement at the launch of the logo earlier this week, Lord Sebastian Coe, chairman of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games, said: "This is the vision at the very heart of our brand. It will define the venues we build and the games we hold and act as a reminder of our promise to use the Olympic spirit to inspire everyone and reach out to young people around the world. It is an invitation to take part and be involved."
Others to back the design include Jacque Rogge, the IOC President, who said it was "a truly innovative brand logo that graphically captures the essence of the London 2012 Olympic Games".
Colin Grannell, executive vice-president of sponsorship at Olympic sponsor Visa, said he was "delighted" with it, in particular the "freedom" given to adapt the logo to sponsors' own brand colours.
Others have come out in favour of the design on Brand Republic's forums although the overwhelming response has been negative
Comments
Not sure if everyone's first sight of the new logo was like mine, on the front page of The Sun with the words 'excuse for a logo' underneath.
Out of context and with the weight of comment against it, the bandwagon has soon filled up. Easier to join in and slag it off than develop your own opinion. How sad, but typical.
It's not got that Chariot's of Fire charm and nor should it. If it had, we'd have forgotton it already.
For me it's distinctive, relevant and memorable. It has movement, (obviously a little too much at present), and vitality.
But most important, it's involved everyone.....already.
Isn't that the point?
A A - 06/06/2007
It is truly, truly embarrassing. Everyone I have spoken with at numerous design agencies is unanimous in their view that it is one of the worst pieces of graphic design / branding they have ever seen. Please, please scrap it and hold some sort of competition to find a new one! There are so many talented designers in London, why are we being represented with this abomination?!
Does this remind anyone of the British Airways tail fin design debacle? Band wagons were made to be jumped on!
Although I don't care for the specific aesthetics of the new logo, the furore that it has caused represents fear of the new.
I believe that clients usually get the work that they deserve. If the brief called for a radically different solution to the hackneyed London skyline as a backdrop to the Olympic rings then that is what has been delivered. It's all about the brief.
There is no way that anybody could look at that and consider it to be a well-designed, appropriate logo.
What on earth were the designers thinking? It looks - literally - like something an infant would produce using an old PaintShop package.
Please don't ascribe the widespread criticism to bandwagon jumping - the logo is clearly awful. Public and professional opinion is rightfully against it.
Also, I'm curious about tbis comment made above by Christian James:
"Easier to join in and slag it off than develop your own opinion. How sad, but typical."
Er... what if your opinion is that the logo is rubbish? Which is what pretty much everyone seems to think.
Maybe I could learn to like this logo if only I could understand how it relates to:
a) The Olympics
b) Sport
c) London
I can understand that to some extent it symbolises the young, urban culture of London - but to me it doesn't say anything about the way that a deprived area of the city is being re-generated by sport. Nor does it convey any of the history of the Olympic games.
I'd also like to know if there was any public consultation about this logo during the planning stages.
It seems a shame that this would have been a great opportunity to solicit design ideas from children in schools around the country. I can't help thinking they might have done a better job!
A A - 06/06/2007
Do the “bandwagon” commentators on this page work for Wolff Olins? Surely only WO employees could defend this piece of work!
WAKE UP - IT'S HIDEOUS!!!!
Has any logo sparked this kind of reaction before?
The logo has been in the public domain for a couple of days and already it's one of the most famous British marks. I think this is all absolutely hilarious. Well done WO for challenging the UK with design. Suddenly everyone is a designer - this is fantastic!
(I don't work there!)
X Jin - 06/06/2007
this logo looks so childish. scrap it for god's sake
I have to agree with Christian's initial comments - why do people make such a big noise without taking time to live with it for a while before they comment? As 2012 gets closer and the logo is seen across various forms of media I bet more than half the people who currently say it's bad will decide they actually quite like what it looks like, what it stands for and the excitement that is created around it.
I bet there are people out there now who hated it on Monday but have grown to like it already.
I bet the brief said the logo had to inspire the youth of the world (like the British Olympic bid promised) and the judging commitee (and their wives, husbands etc), all middle aged (like me), thought it had real street cred and was 'down wid da kids'.
I also bet the brief was to be radically different from previous logos, which has resulted in the baby being thrown out with the bath water.
I agree with Paul, the brief must have been youth-focussed and differentiating, so in a way the bloody thing is on brief, but it's just very awkward and uninspiring.
The importance of the olympic rings and London are completely lost in favour of this crazed design. I bet it said in the brief to move away from tradition, but that doesn't mean throw the symbolism and patriotism out of the window!
There's no balance with this design, with regards to what needs to be communicated now as opposed to previous years with the communication of the importance of modern, London Olympic sentiment.
I can't help wondering if this is a sign of things to come .. the logo is a big disappointment, so will the rest of the Olympics be a complete shambles too? Probably. It's a big shame... this would have been the one chance for London ( that's a capital 'L' by the way) to redeem itself after past failures (e.g. the Dome, Millennium Bridge, Wembley etc.) but it looks like that's not going to happen.
Glass half empty or what!!!
I think it's fair to say that this logo represents our general experience of English sport - great potential, bad performance, disappointing result...
This is the longest blog trail I have ever seen on brand-republic. I guess that means this logo is hard to ignore and hard to like. Which may not matter. Let's see. It's only a logo. Not the event. Yours, trying to stay open-minded - Mark
This logo debate has truly become a cause celebre - but it is getting a lot of attention - and that's the main point, right?
What if they had stuck with the first version - the one I noticed was aptly-named as 'an excuse for a logo'? Would anyone have noticed, or would've they just thought that "oh it's one of those Olympics-style logos - it's clean and visually appealing - gee whiz, I can't wait another few years to see the next one"?
There are many people at fault here. Even with a brief with the best intentions (most likely articulated how Paul Archer wrote above) and a talented agency who brought us such memorable work as Tate Modern and Orange, it does nothing to change the fact that the result is an unfortunate abomination we will all have to live with for the next 5 years… and beyond.
Quite frankly, Wolff Olins should know better and a client with design sense and the balls to stop bad work would be a nice edition to the London Olympic team before it is too late.
The real winner here are the PR people at WO and the IOC who I hope run with this surprising and over bloated concern by the public. Why on earth do we all care so much? There’s an insight in there somewhere and if spun correctly this will continue to be a PR dream.
(and note to budding entrepreneurs – I’m seeing t-shirts for sale on Oxford Street with “I like it” and “I hate it”. Why not start Olympic Fever early!)
As far as WO being winners here, i beg to differ. They haven't come out of this looking good.
And all the comments that the logo must be doing something right becuase everyone is talking about it - that is basically sophistry.
People are talking about it becuase it looks rubbish. The point of the whole exercise was to have a good logo for the Games project, not to have a crap logo that has so far attracted the derision of 50,000+ online petitioners and any number of press commentators.
Clearly some people are of the mindset that there is no such thing as bad publicity, which is not the case when something is a complete laughing stock.
It's also gratifying to see that there are still any number of people who believe that nothing should be criticised, despit how bad it obviously is. No doubt the product of schools where sports day was banned in case anybody who didnt win felt inferior or marginalised.
I think the whole debarcle is hilarious! I'm not a designer and have no experience of logo creation, so this is an entirely personal opinion from a consumers perspective.
Leaving the cost aside, I'm not sure we should be judging the merits of this design at such an early stage. Yes, it's completely different from all the previous Olympic logos, but is that really such a bad thing. LOCOG clearly want to make a statement with the games and it's obvious that the creation of this logo has done that.
I admit, it will take some time to get used to it, but until we see it in use across all the different media and communication channels, I'm not sure critisism is justified. Take a look at the LloydsTSB website where they've incorporated it into their branding.
When you launch a brand, product or, in this case a logo, one of your objectives is to get recognition as quickly as possible. I think it's fair to say they've achieved that!!!
every designer knows that you never present ideas until you have satisfied yourself and others in a never ending cycle of logos upon logos and you better have 500 of them...
Well, this looks like a beginning of an idea, but it was the second or third in the pile. It never had a chance to mature and become a finished idea, and the bill was already sent for payment. WO is known for better than that.
I'm glad there is such noise about it, hey, people care about design!
Yeah it's just ugly. It looks like something off of the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air or Saved by the Bell. It would have been a great logo for the 1994 Olympics, especially with the colors they're using.
Comments
christian james - 06/06/2007
Not sure if everyone's first sight of the new logo was like mine, on the front page of The Sun with the words 'excuse for a logo' underneath. Out of context and with the weight of comment against it, the bandwagon has soon filled up. Easier to join in and slag it off than develop your own opinion. How sad, but typical. It's not got that Chariot's of Fire charm and nor should it. If it had, we'd have forgotton it already. For me it's distinctive, relevant and memorable. It has movement, (obviously a little too much at present), and vitality. But most important, it's involved everyone.....already. Isn't that the point?
A A - 06/06/2007
It is truly, truly embarrassing. Everyone I have spoken with at numerous design agencies is unanimous in their view that it is one of the worst pieces of graphic design / branding they have ever seen. Please, please scrap it and hold some sort of competition to find a new one! There are so many talented designers in London, why are we being represented with this abomination?!
Trevor Bradford - 06/06/2007
Does this remind anyone of the British Airways tail fin design debacle? Band wagons were made to be jumped on! Although I don't care for the specific aesthetics of the new logo, the furore that it has caused represents fear of the new. I believe that clients usually get the work that they deserve. If the brief called for a radically different solution to the hackneyed London skyline as a backdrop to the Olympic rings then that is what has been delivered. It's all about the brief.
john o'regan - 06/06/2007
There is no way that anybody could look at that and consider it to be a well-designed, appropriate logo. What on earth were the designers thinking? It looks - literally - like something an infant would produce using an old PaintShop package. Please don't ascribe the widespread criticism to bandwagon jumping - the logo is clearly awful. Public and professional opinion is rightfully against it.
john o'regan - 06/06/2007
Also, I'm curious about tbis comment made above by Christian James: "Easier to join in and slag it off than develop your own opinion. How sad, but typical." Er... what if your opinion is that the logo is rubbish? Which is what pretty much everyone seems to think.
Anne Vasey - 06/06/2007
Maybe I could learn to like this logo if only I could understand how it relates to: a) The Olympics b) Sport c) London I can understand that to some extent it symbolises the young, urban culture of London - but to me it doesn't say anything about the way that a deprived area of the city is being re-generated by sport. Nor does it convey any of the history of the Olympic games. I'd also like to know if there was any public consultation about this logo during the planning stages. It seems a shame that this would have been a great opportunity to solicit design ideas from children in schools around the country. I can't help thinking they might have done a better job!
A A - 06/06/2007
Do the “bandwagon” commentators on this page work for Wolff Olins? Surely only WO employees could defend this piece of work! WAKE UP - IT'S HIDEOUS!!!!
Joseph Hughes - 06/06/2007
Has any logo sparked this kind of reaction before? The logo has been in the public domain for a couple of days and already it's one of the most famous British marks. I think this is all absolutely hilarious. Well done WO for challenging the UK with design. Suddenly everyone is a designer - this is fantastic! (I don't work there!)
X Jin - 06/06/2007
this logo looks so childish. scrap it for god's sake
Guy Silk - 06/06/2007
I like it
Richard Poole - 06/06/2007
I have to agree with Christian's initial comments - why do people make such a big noise without taking time to live with it for a while before they comment? As 2012 gets closer and the logo is seen across various forms of media I bet more than half the people who currently say it's bad will decide they actually quite like what it looks like, what it stands for and the excitement that is created around it. I bet there are people out there now who hated it on Monday but have grown to like it already.
Paul Archer - 06/06/2007
I bet the brief said the logo had to inspire the youth of the world (like the British Olympic bid promised) and the judging commitee (and their wives, husbands etc), all middle aged (like me), thought it had real street cred and was 'down wid da kids'. I also bet the brief was to be radically different from previous logos, which has resulted in the baby being thrown out with the bath water.
Louise Kennedy - 06/06/2007
I agree with Paul, the brief must have been youth-focussed and differentiating, so in a way the bloody thing is on brief, but it's just very awkward and uninspiring. The importance of the olympic rings and London are completely lost in favour of this crazed design. I bet it said in the brief to move away from tradition, but that doesn't mean throw the symbolism and patriotism out of the window! There's no balance with this design, with regards to what needs to be communicated now as opposed to previous years with the communication of the importance of modern, London Olympic sentiment.
Wendy Cocksedge - 06/06/2007
I can't help wondering if this is a sign of things to come .. the logo is a big disappointment, so will the rest of the Olympics be a complete shambles too? Probably. It's a big shame... this would have been the one chance for London ( that's a capital 'L' by the way) to redeem itself after past failures (e.g. the Dome, Millennium Bridge, Wembley etc.) but it looks like that's not going to happen.
Richard Poole - 06/06/2007
Glass half empty or what!!!
Ben Aldis - 06/06/2007
I think it's fair to say that this logo represents our general experience of English sport - great potential, bad performance, disappointing result...
Mark Johnson - 06/06/2007
This is the longest blog trail I have ever seen on brand-republic. I guess that means this logo is hard to ignore and hard to like. Which may not matter. Let's see. It's only a logo. Not the event. Yours, trying to stay open-minded - Mark
Mihnea Miculescu - 06/06/2007
This logo debate has truly become a cause celebre - but it is getting a lot of attention - and that's the main point, right? What if they had stuck with the first version - the one I noticed was aptly-named as 'an excuse for a logo'? Would anyone have noticed, or would've they just thought that "oh it's one of those Olympics-style logos - it's clean and visually appealing - gee whiz, I can't wait another few years to see the next one"?
Gord Ray - 07/06/2007
There are many people at fault here. Even with a brief with the best intentions (most likely articulated how Paul Archer wrote above) and a talented agency who brought us such memorable work as Tate Modern and Orange, it does nothing to change the fact that the result is an unfortunate abomination we will all have to live with for the next 5 years… and beyond. Quite frankly, Wolff Olins should know better and a client with design sense and the balls to stop bad work would be a nice edition to the London Olympic team before it is too late. The real winner here are the PR people at WO and the IOC who I hope run with this surprising and over bloated concern by the public. Why on earth do we all care so much? There’s an insight in there somewhere and if spun correctly this will continue to be a PR dream. (and note to budding entrepreneurs – I’m seeing t-shirts for sale on Oxford Street with “I like it” and “I hate it”. Why not start Olympic Fever early!)
john o'regan - 07/06/2007
As far as WO being winners here, i beg to differ. They haven't come out of this looking good. And all the comments that the logo must be doing something right becuase everyone is talking about it - that is basically sophistry. People are talking about it becuase it looks rubbish. The point of the whole exercise was to have a good logo for the Games project, not to have a crap logo that has so far attracted the derision of 50,000+ online petitioners and any number of press commentators. Clearly some people are of the mindset that there is no such thing as bad publicity, which is not the case when something is a complete laughing stock. It's also gratifying to see that there are still any number of people who believe that nothing should be criticised, despit how bad it obviously is. No doubt the product of schools where sports day was banned in case anybody who didnt win felt inferior or marginalised.
Huw Wigley - 07/06/2007
I think the whole debarcle is hilarious! I'm not a designer and have no experience of logo creation, so this is an entirely personal opinion from a consumers perspective. Leaving the cost aside, I'm not sure we should be judging the merits of this design at such an early stage. Yes, it's completely different from all the previous Olympic logos, but is that really such a bad thing. LOCOG clearly want to make a statement with the games and it's obvious that the creation of this logo has done that. I admit, it will take some time to get used to it, but until we see it in use across all the different media and communication channels, I'm not sure critisism is justified. Take a look at the LloydsTSB website where they've incorporated it into their branding. When you launch a brand, product or, in this case a logo, one of your objectives is to get recognition as quickly as possible. I think it's fair to say they've achieved that!!!
ilan Geva - 07/06/2007
every designer knows that you never present ideas until you have satisfied yourself and others in a never ending cycle of logos upon logos and you better have 500 of them... Well, this looks like a beginning of an idea, but it was the second or third in the pile. It never had a chance to mature and become a finished idea, and the bill was already sent for payment. WO is known for better than that. I'm glad there is such noise about it, hey, people care about design!
Ben Damshenas - 15/06/2007
I like the logo.
Amanda Liu - 15/01/2008
Yeah it's just ugly. It looks like something off of the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air or Saved by the Bell. It would have been a great logo for the 1994 Olympics, especially with the colors they're using.