Design Disconnect: No, It's Just Ugly

In a recent bit of news, London officially, errr graphically, threw their hat in the ring for the ZOR Olympics... The ZOR olympics being for worst logo design ever.

Sure, within hours, thousands of Britons had already begun signing a petition demanding a new logo, but London 2012's organising committee chairman Seb Coe had a clear, concise, direct message to those dissenters:

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.

We will host a Games where everyone is invited to join in because they are inspired by the Games to either take part in the many sports, cultural, educational and community events leading up to 2012 or they will be inspired to achieve personal goals."

I applaud Mr. Coe's sound reasoning. I mean, just how can you argue with ad-speak laden drivel?

Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell added,

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.

Oh, now I get it. It's diverse, inclusive and welcoming -- like an abstract painting. You're not supposed to understand it. That's just the cogent message London needs to send. Go London!

Now I also know why they took our logo away. Obviously we violated the rules and let someone over the age of 9 design our logo:

Seth says, "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."

Can I get an Amen?

________________

Update (6/6) : Looks like bad design can hurt people. How glad are you that you aren't on this design team?

Comments

[Brenda]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I mean, could there have been an uglier design? Was it a concentrated effort to create something this bad? I guess we'll never know. Thanks for posting this.

[Bud Caddell]

Sometimes there are zombie bandwagons (the, 'hey, where's everybody going, oh, wait, I'll go too kind)

and sometimes there are the legitimate bandwagons (taxation without representation does seem unfair)

don't let the crowd do your thinking for you, but don't let your thinking be crowded out.

that logo is just plain bad -- and when you consider the outrageous price-tag, something like $800k, publicly funded by the tax payers, then that output is plain criminal.

It's as if the price tag is the agency's justification. "Look, it's ugly, but it's expensive ugly."

[Ethan]

In the recent days I've found it very hard not to jump on the "recoil in horror" bandwagon myself. But I have to say that I am curious about the process that ran up to this. I'm not really expecting Wolff Olins to be transparent about that, transparency has never been the forte of the brand/ad agencies. But before I just say it's bad, I am curious to know more, and not in marketing speak.

I would be willing to bet that client politics and account leadership played a big role in this result. Imagine how the designers feel who no doubt slaved over many solutions - probably far better ones - only to have this win out.

Anyone who has spent any time in a quasi-agency setting has had a project start great only to explode in flames for reasons beyond their control. It has to be angering beyond words to have it happen on such a high profile project.