June 4, 2007

2012 olympic “brand launch”

04062007418.jpg
[The papa­razzi get­ting in their photo ops etc. Watching them was somehow more inte­res­ting than watching the spor­ting celebs on stage.]
My friends at Edel­man kindly invi­ted me this mor­ning to the “Brand Launch” of the 2012 Lon­don Olym­pics [No, I wasn’t paid. Just so you know]. Here are my thoughts, in no par­ti­cu­lar order:
1. Any­body who’s ever stu­died the Olym­pics knows what a huge poli­ti­cal and eco­no­mic under­ta­king it is. Frankly, I find multi-billion dollar exer­ci­ses in good inten­tions a bit off-putting. I mean, look at The Mille­nium Dome. That being said, if they manage to pull iit off, it’ll create thou­sands of sus­tai­na­ble jobs for Lon­do­ners, not to men­tion re-develop the whole east end of town.
2. The event was very slick and stage mana­ged. Quite unlike the geeky con­fe­ren­ces I go to. You could tell all par­ti­ci­pants rehear­sed their script for weeks befo­rehand. But hey, the sta­kes are high, so what the heck…
3. Sebas­tian Coe, the 1980 Olym­pic Gold Meda­list and front man of the Lon­don Olym­pic Com­mit­tee, is actually very good at his job. You can tell he pas­sio­na­tely belie­ves his own sch­piel. With this kind of thing, it’s easy to be cyni­cal. The hard part is being sin­cere, not to men­tion, effec­tive.
4. From what I unders­tand, they ori­gi­nally pitched it to the Olym­pics Com­mit­tee as “The People’s Olym­pics”. Living in a basi­cally libe­ral, tole­rant large city of 10 million peo­ple, I can’t say I’m sur­pri­sed. What I did like about their rea­so­ning was that their sch­piel wasn’t so much, “Let’s use the Olym­pics to ins­pire young peo­ple to find their own great­ness via Sport”. Their sch­piel was more, “Let’s use the Olym­pics to ins­pire young peo­ple to find their own great­ness… within them­sel­ves. Doing wha­te­ver it is they do, not neces­sa­rily Sport”. I actually thought that was quite cle­ver. In a good way.
5. I’m not used to these mega-huge, super-slick PR events. But it was inte­res­ting to see. I actually came away far less cyni­cal than I had ori­gi­nally pre­dic­ted. So good luck to them.
[UPDATE:] Seth Godin is not impres­sed:

If you are paying money to someone who talks like this, may I sug­gest you stop? And if you work for someone who talks like this, time to look for a new gig.

I know what he means. When large, highly-idealised, expen­sive poli­ti­cal sche­mes start going on about “The Brand”, “Inc­lu­si­vity”, “Exci­te­ment”, “Pas­sion” etc, it all gets a bit cheesy [Like I said, remem­ber the Mille­nium Dome?]. But I disa­gee with Seth re. the 2012 Olym­pic logo. I quite liked it when I first saw it.

13 Responses to “2012 olympic “brand launch””

  1. Slava says:

    That’s great Hugh, but let’s get to the juicy part… What do you think about the logo?

  2. What do you think about the 2012 logo they relea­sed yes­ter­day?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6719805.stm

  3. cp says:

    Hugh, I agree with you more often than not.… but… man, that logo is atro­cious. mmmm.… maybe this is all part of the evil Blue Mons­ter Mic­ro­soft gig.… launching a logo on the world that was clearly desig­ned in the ori­gi­nal ver­sion of MS Paint, etc.

  4. John Dodds says:

    It’s dead in the water — asso­cia­ted with ridi­cule in the public mind. No won­der when peo­ple like this are invol­ved.
    Olym­pics Minis­ter Tessa Jowell com­men­ted: “This is an ico­nic brand that sums up what Lon­don 2012 is all about – an inc­lu­sive, wel­co­ming and diverse Games that invol­ves the whole country. It takes our values to the world beyond our sho­res, acting both as an invi­ta­tion and an ins­pi­ra­tion. This is not just a mar­ke­ting logo, but a sym­bol that will become fami­liar, ins­tantly recog­ni­sa­ble and asso­cia­ted with our Games in so many ways during the next five years.”

  5. John Dodds says:

    When any scheme starts going on about “The Brand”, “Inc­lu­si­vity”, “Exci­te­ment”, “Pas­sion” etc, it all gets more than a bit cheesy.

  6. Al Robertson says:

    Huge mis­sed oppor­tu­nity for me — loo­king at the qua­lity of people-generated logos on the BBC web­site, they should have run some sort of natio­nal ‘create the logo’ com­pe­ti­tion. Great PR, buy in from all and sundry, etc… as it is, for me it says uni­ma­gi­na­tive, bureauc­ra­tic, ove­rin­vol­ved client. Dome II, anyone?

  7. hugh macleod says:

    Al, given the vast myriad of spe­cial inte­rest groups, com­mit­tees and quango’s the logo desig­ners had to pass through, and get out in one piece, it’s ama­zing a logo got made at all.
    Secondly, I doubt there is any logo that peo­ple would’ve liked…

  8. alan p says:

    Agree re let­ting the peo­ple have a go at desig­ning the logo for the “people’s Olympics” — if this is what the pro talent can do, give me user gene­ra­ted design any­time ;)

  9. Hrishi says:

    That logo is no doubt ugly, but Hugh does make two valid points. An image made to please ever­yone and their cou­sin must have died before incep­tion itself. Given the scale of the event, it really doesn’t even mat­ter what the logo is.
    There’s no point in pre­ten­ding that there’s one voice when so many dif­fe­rent peo­ple have been and are going to be invol­ved in crea­ting this ‘brand’(if thats’s what they choose to call them­sel­ves). Fun­da­men­tally, the Olym­pics are about sports and I don’t think any sports­per­son would give much atten­tion to this.
    Any­way, they say it’s got in much more money than was spent on it. Of course, no one’s going to look at the logo once the media fla­mes die out. Plus, half a decade should be enough to for­get all about it.

  10. David Armano says:

    Hugh,
    Anyone who reads my blog has pro­bably figu­red out that I love design but am not a design snob. With that con­text, I have to tell you that I’m stun­ned this logo was cho­sen. My beef with it aside from an aesthe­tic dis­like is that it focu­ses on the wrong things like:
    “The new emblem is dyna­mic, modern and fle­xi­ble. It will work with new tech­no­logy and across tra­di­tio­nal and new media net­works.”
    what??
    I’m lost. I thought this was sup­po­sed to be about the Olym­pic spi­rit and Lon­don coming together in 2012.
    I could be wrong here, but I think something went awry in the design pro­cess.
    I wrote about it on L+E if you’re interested…

  11. Warwick says:

    If you think the Lon­don logo is bad…check out the logo for our 2010 Van­cou­ver games. It’s an Inukshuk — a native rock struc­ture that is mainly seen in the North. Not only is it a horri­ble, cheesy, no-style logo, it also gives the West Coast nati­ves a huge smack in the face. We have so much great West Coast native art (totem poles, masks, etc.)…why did we have to use a mainly Inuit icon?

  12. Darcy Moen says:

    Now they be ani­ma­ting the logo!
    *WARNING* NSFW (not safe for work)
    http://theospark.blogspot.com/2007/06/london-olympics-logo.html
    ‘living the brand’ I would say. :-)

  13. I’m remin­ded of the Sex Pistols.…not sure that was in the brief!
    Not keen on the ani­ma­tion but much of hys­te­ria around the logo is way over the top. It’s expen­sive and it’s not won­der­ful but I’ve seen worse!
    Danni