Ah, the logo!
|
Well, it's certainly provoked reaction. Bland it isn't! Wolff Olins, the company behind the design, are well established market leaders in corporate identity. I worked for them for many years as a freelance photographer, so I got to see something of their ways of thinking and working. There is no doubt that much work went into the new logo (or emblem or trade mark, or whatever you call it), in particular its implementation over a whole range of products. The final result would not have been reached lightly. But, is it any good? Well, if it's used for the next five years, we will certainly become familiar with it. We may come to recognise its depth, its brilliance and the vision it represents. It might do its job very well. Or we may continue to loathe it. From watching Wolff Olins at work (although this was thirty years ago…), I can tell you that they are capable of telling you that a particular logo and design concept are rubbish and will never work. Equally they could convince you that the same logo and concept are innovative, stunning, far-reaching and fit for the 21st century. (See below*) That's the trouble with logos and design. They are very personal, they are very easy to criticise and usually their success or failure can only be measured much later. Does it actually matter what the London 2012 logo is. Surely as long as it's recognised and we instantly know what it refers to, then it doesn't actually matter too much what its design is, because by then it's already done its job. It's then a matter of personal opinion whether you like it or not. Companies change logos and design schemes all the time. Try to think back to what the Prudential Insurance (or Assurance?) Company's used to be. Does it matter that you can't remember all its different forms? The Shell logo has evolved over the years. Some companies, though, change their logo and their design scheme in the hope of rebranding themselves and making them successful again. Wally Olins, former head of the company, always stressed that such changes would have no benefit in themselves unless the real ethos behind the company changed too. The London 2012 'company' doesn't have years of tradition behind it, so it needed to get its public face right immediately. Does a logo that looks like graffiti that you see alongside railway tracks achieve that? As one cartoonist remarked about the logo: "Let's hope it's finished by 2012." At the moment, my view is that it's an opportunity missed. It says nothing of value and quality to me. It can't even spell London correctly. (P.S. On this theme I once wrote to McDonald's expressing my amazement that they could spell wrongly a word that consisted of only one letter—the "I" in their tagline of "i'm lovin' it". They didn't reply. So that's two reasons not to go there.) The London logo says nothing to the viewer of pride, heritage, or confidence in oneself. Although, maybe that's what it's meant to do. In a way, the 2012 logo is like the new Fulham badge. This new badge scores on a number of points—it's simple, instantly recognisable, and doesn't even need to use the team's name. I'm sure the marketing boys love it for all those reasons. But, it's soulless, with no style, class, or history. It, too, is an opportunity lost. Well, people say, if you don't like the logo then come up with something different. That's not the point. It's the logo's job to speak to me. All the London one says is ugh and ouch and aaarghhh. It certainly doesn't uplift my spirit and make me feel good. It may work on one level—as an identifying mark. But then so would a red circle. At the moment it does nothing more for me. But at least Wolff Olins have got the country talking about design and corporate identity! And with their design for London 2012 they certainly have been bold and innovative, not gone for the easy option. Only time will tell how good or bad the design really is. *Below is what Wolff Olins themselves say about their design. Make up your own mind!
|