The marketing trends survey, conducted by Ipsos Mori for the Chartered Institute of Marketing, found that 57% of marketers believe that the logo is not an effective design, including 30% who feel strongly that it is ineffective.
Only one in five believe that the 2012 logo is an effective design.
David Thorp, director of research and information at the CIM, said: "The logo should communicate clearly an appealing identity for the games, yet the UK's marketers are deeply sceptical about its ability to do so.
"With the public and marketing professionals set against it, those involved with the Olympic logo have a lot of work to do over the next four years to win them round."
When the logo, designed by Wolff Olins, was revealed in June last year it sparked an unprecedented public and media backlash with calls for it to be axed.
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.
Wolff Olins was appointed without London 2012 having seen any design ideas from the agency.
The CIM's online questionnaire was completed by 2,058 marketing professionals from a broad section of organisations by sector, turnover and geographic location.
Comments
The 2012 Olympics' logo is without a doubt the most horrific piece of design/art (if it can be deemed that) and deserves to be axed on the grounds of being an offense to the eye.
Over priced. Under deleivered. I have no ideas what WO was doing with this project. It's technically really bad design, uninspiring and has had a totally negative reaction. It was such a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate the UK is truly a world-leader in entertainment, culture and sport. What a horrible internationally renowned and public failure. The final execution should be executed. And WO - you should be refunding your fee.
I can't make heads or tails of it. it is a classic case of not keeping the design simple. It really doesn't catch attention and isn't engageing at all. I believe a rethink shouldn't be out the question on this considering the amount of items this logo is going to be used on in the next few years. Just looking at it gives me no positive emotions about the olympic games at all.
Here's a message from The Netherlands just to confirm we here at the continent really do not understand where this piece of horror comes from. We really believe the UK is in the top league when it comes to design - however, this piece of 'work' could really ruin your reputation. Please WO, give us a 'mea culpa' and come up with something that WILL make everybody in the UK proud to be part of the funtastic designmovement in the UK!
I'm giving my design for free if they'll take it:
http://www.yonialter.com/all_images/olympic.gif
Everyone is has been so quick to brand WO's work as bad, but where is the blame for the client here? LOCOG hired WO to do the work. WO didn't do it for free or give them this piece of trash. WO would have gone through an extensive creative brief and approval process with the London 2012 Olympic organizers. This is their fault, not WO's.
Monte - I'm sorry, rarely do I say something like this to a fellow blogger / contributer - but that's an absolute load of crap. If my studio came up with that, I'd have left that back at the office on presentation day. Anyone with any taste, sense and reason would see it's bum idea. It's bad design from one of the best in the world, and they showed it to the client for them to choose from. Thus... WO's responsibility. Whatever research and feedback they had would guide their approach. We're criticising the execution not the strategy or even the reasoning. It's bad design. Full stop.
Fair enough, but when you work with your client, do they automatically take the very first or even very best ideas you present? The creative process for this lasted a full year and would have included an extensive amount of consultation between LOCOG's brand managers and WO - this was not WO's design team sent away to work and then back to be voted on at tribal council. It would have been a facilitated and evolutionary process with numerous stakeholders. And in the end, those footing the 400K bill would be the ones with the most sway and the ones making the decision. With nearly 60% of marketers saying this thing is ineffective and 80% of the general public hating it, don't you see it is obvious that LOCOG wanted something like this as their emblem? Clients get what they ask for. And sometimes clients are clueless, arrogant, and out of touch...but they foot the bill.
I could go on about this logo all day Monte. Your comments demonstrate one of the key failings in our industry. Buck passing. Do you think for a second in the brief the LOC gave to WO that they wanted a logo that 60% of marketers and 80% of the public hated? No. So it's a terrible result. Don't blame the client community either. We all know how tough they can be, I run an agency so I go through it everyday, but I also know everything we deliver I'm proud of. And if the client is leading a project away from the brief, or gets lost in the process - it's OUR job to keep things on track and deliver their objective. Which I reckon was probably something like 'give us a logo that will engage the country, inspire communities (domestic and international) and create a sense of pride in our athletes, sport and London. So... who's fault is it? The client doesn't use the Apple Mac Monte........ they can only choose from the options on the table.
Like everything in Britain today:
1. It's third rate.
2. It's slow, late and difficult to adapt.
3. It's expensive.
Your could add, a cretin could have told you so. Did they do a test? Did anyone do a test?
You do know what testing is, I presume. Oh, I see, of course you don't, otherwise you wouldn't have done this piece of crap.
Wow, you must manage your client relationship much differently than I've ever seen big time client relationships managed. I've been on both sides of the table, and in my experience, the client comes up with the brief to explain their needs and desires, not the supplier. They do work together, hash out ideas, options are bantered about, and then a few ideas are narrowed down, presented, and tweaked. The client says things like "change this colour", "make this more square", "make the font bigger", and "let's run it by our lawyers", and the supplier says "this colour works better here", "this font size is best because...". The supplier does not own the brand. The client does. When clients hire an agency in this manner--especially big ones like they Olympics--they don't just choose a logo from a booklet of options and then send that one to be trademarked. London 2012 hired WO because they wanted a custom design and wanted control over how it was designed. They had a specific desire. Otherwise, they would have held a cheap and easy design contest like Vancouver 2010 or Beijing 2008 did or even amongst their own team of designers (and yes, all Olympic organizing committees have full time design staff with Macs, too!). Even if WO just supplied a booklet of options for the client to pick from, LOCOG's brand managers did pick this one. London 2012 clearly wanted something bold and edgy that broke the tradition of Olympic logos. And they got just that. Too bad is just so awful.
Monte - your confusing what I'm saying. We work excatly the same way with our clients... but if our studio cam up with something that we didn't think we work, we wouldn't show the client. That's the same with every agency, and every process. It's a dud execution. We handle projects the same way as any agency, it's the clients money and they get something that suits the brief. But surely you;re not suggesting for a second that's what they asked for? No. It's what WO gave them. I blame the agency. They have a duty of care for every project they handle. It may not be their brand, but it's their expertise. Simple as that.
We are getting closer to agreeing, but still, London 2012 has to foot part of the blame since they footed all of the bill. They approved this POS. They could have told WO to go back to the table. They were probably high on steroids when they did it.
LOL... fair point. Monte I think we are agreeing essentially. And agreed the client does choose, so they do take ultimate responsibility. But and this is my argument... if that logo wasn't even on the table, they couldn't have chosen it. That's where WO have let them down. They are big enough and ugly enough to know better. My earlier point is this... if it's crap you don't present it. If you do and it gets chosen, it's your fault. And if the client is such that they want something you don't want to do, you walk away from the project. We've all sacked clients over the years because of 'creative differences'. So I just don't see any excuse for WO.
Comments
Charlie Simon - 22/07/2008
The 2012 Olympics' logo is without a doubt the most horrific piece of design/art (if it can be deemed that) and deserves to be axed on the grounds of being an offense to the eye.
Gellan Watt - 22/07/2008
Over priced. Under deleivered. I have no ideas what WO was doing with this project. It's technically really bad design, uninspiring and has had a totally negative reaction. It was such a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate the UK is truly a world-leader in entertainment, culture and sport. What a horrible internationally renowned and public failure. The final execution should be executed. And WO - you should be refunding your fee.
Alex Warwick - 23/07/2008
I can't make heads or tails of it. it is a classic case of not keeping the design simple. It really doesn't catch attention and isn't engageing at all. I believe a rethink shouldn't be out the question on this considering the amount of items this logo is going to be used on in the next few years. Just looking at it gives me no positive emotions about the olympic games at all.
Marianne Kellner - 23/07/2008
Here's a message from The Netherlands just to confirm we here at the continent really do not understand where this piece of horror comes from. We really believe the UK is in the top league when it comes to design - however, this piece of 'work' could really ruin your reputation. Please WO, give us a 'mea culpa' and come up with something that WILL make everybody in the UK proud to be part of the funtastic designmovement in the UK!
yoni alter - 23/07/2008
I'm giving my design for free if they'll take it: http://www.yonialter.com/all_images/olympic.gif
Monte Nero - 24/07/2008
Everyone is has been so quick to brand WO's work as bad, but where is the blame for the client here? LOCOG hired WO to do the work. WO didn't do it for free or give them this piece of trash. WO would have gone through an extensive creative brief and approval process with the London 2012 Olympic organizers. This is their fault, not WO's.
Charlie Simon - 24/07/2008
Good point
Gellan Watt - 24/07/2008
Monte - I'm sorry, rarely do I say something like this to a fellow blogger / contributer - but that's an absolute load of crap. If my studio came up with that, I'd have left that back at the office on presentation day. Anyone with any taste, sense and reason would see it's bum idea. It's bad design from one of the best in the world, and they showed it to the client for them to choose from. Thus... WO's responsibility. Whatever research and feedback they had would guide their approach. We're criticising the execution not the strategy or even the reasoning. It's bad design. Full stop.
Monte Nero - 25/07/2008
Fair enough, but when you work with your client, do they automatically take the very first or even very best ideas you present? The creative process for this lasted a full year and would have included an extensive amount of consultation between LOCOG's brand managers and WO - this was not WO's design team sent away to work and then back to be voted on at tribal council. It would have been a facilitated and evolutionary process with numerous stakeholders. And in the end, those footing the 400K bill would be the ones with the most sway and the ones making the decision. With nearly 60% of marketers saying this thing is ineffective and 80% of the general public hating it, don't you see it is obvious that LOCOG wanted something like this as their emblem? Clients get what they ask for. And sometimes clients are clueless, arrogant, and out of touch...but they foot the bill.
Gellan Watt - 25/07/2008
I could go on about this logo all day Monte. Your comments demonstrate one of the key failings in our industry. Buck passing. Do you think for a second in the brief the LOC gave to WO that they wanted a logo that 60% of marketers and 80% of the public hated? No. So it's a terrible result. Don't blame the client community either. We all know how tough they can be, I run an agency so I go through it everyday, but I also know everything we deliver I'm proud of. And if the client is leading a project away from the brief, or gets lost in the process - it's OUR job to keep things on track and deliver their objective. Which I reckon was probably something like 'give us a logo that will engage the country, inspire communities (domestic and international) and create a sense of pride in our athletes, sport and London. So... who's fault is it? The client doesn't use the Apple Mac Monte........ they can only choose from the options on the table.
Nic Niewart - 25/07/2008
Like everything in Britain today: 1. It's third rate. 2. It's slow, late and difficult to adapt. 3. It's expensive. Your could add, a cretin could have told you so. Did they do a test? Did anyone do a test? You do know what testing is, I presume. Oh, I see, of course you don't, otherwise you wouldn't have done this piece of crap.
Monte Nero - 25/07/2008
Wow, you must manage your client relationship much differently than I've ever seen big time client relationships managed. I've been on both sides of the table, and in my experience, the client comes up with the brief to explain their needs and desires, not the supplier. They do work together, hash out ideas, options are bantered about, and then a few ideas are narrowed down, presented, and tweaked. The client says things like "change this colour", "make this more square", "make the font bigger", and "let's run it by our lawyers", and the supplier says "this colour works better here", "this font size is best because...". The supplier does not own the brand. The client does. When clients hire an agency in this manner--especially big ones like they Olympics--they don't just choose a logo from a booklet of options and then send that one to be trademarked. London 2012 hired WO because they wanted a custom design and wanted control over how it was designed. They had a specific desire. Otherwise, they would have held a cheap and easy design contest like Vancouver 2010 or Beijing 2008 did or even amongst their own team of designers (and yes, all Olympic organizing committees have full time design staff with Macs, too!). Even if WO just supplied a booklet of options for the client to pick from, LOCOG's brand managers did pick this one. London 2012 clearly wanted something bold and edgy that broke the tradition of Olympic logos. And they got just that. Too bad is just so awful.
Gellan Watt - 26/07/2008
Monte - your confusing what I'm saying. We work excatly the same way with our clients... but if our studio cam up with something that we didn't think we work, we wouldn't show the client. That's the same with every agency, and every process. It's a dud execution. We handle projects the same way as any agency, it's the clients money and they get something that suits the brief. But surely you;re not suggesting for a second that's what they asked for? No. It's what WO gave them. I blame the agency. They have a duty of care for every project they handle. It may not be their brand, but it's their expertise. Simple as that.
Monte Nero - 27/07/2008
We are getting closer to agreeing, but still, London 2012 has to foot part of the blame since they footed all of the bill. They approved this POS. They could have told WO to go back to the table. They were probably high on steroids when they did it.
Gellan Watt - 27/07/2008
LOL... fair point. Monte I think we are agreeing essentially. And agreed the client does choose, so they do take ultimate responsibility. But and this is my argument... if that logo wasn't even on the table, they couldn't have chosen it. That's where WO have let them down. They are big enough and ugly enough to know better. My earlier point is this... if it's crap you don't present it. If you do and it gets chosen, it's your fault. And if the client is such that they want something you don't want to do, you walk away from the project. We've all sacked clients over the years because of 'creative differences'. So I just don't see any excuse for WO.