[cite]Posted By: AFKA Bartram[/cite]one things for sure, its probably been the biggest marketing disaster ever
but this happens with just about any new logo/coin/portrait of the queen/building produced in this country.
It's one of our national sports along with moaning about the degenerate rude kids of today, binge drinking and blaming most things on Johny foreigner.
I blame Henry VIII for the reformation and by doing so creating a literature rather then visual based culture.
Far from being a disaster they are most likely delighted that just about everyone in the country has now seen and knows the logo which is what brand recognition is all about.
I'm going to stick my neck out and say I like it. It's bold, brash and different which everything 2012 is supposed to be. They could have produced something along the lines of the nice one above 'we've got the Olympics in us' but that's all been done before and I think the IOC were expecting London to come up with something totally fresh which is what they've done - that's why we managed to pip Paris at the end of the day. And if nothing else it's generated plenty of column inches which is partly what it's all about.
[cite]Posted By: kinveachyaddick[/cite]I'm going to stick my neck out and say I like it.
It's bold, brash and different which everything 2012 is supposed to be.
They could have produced something along the lines of the nice one above 'we've got the Olympics in us' but that's all been done before and I think the IOC were expecting London to come up with something totally fresh which is what they've done - that's why we managed to pip Paris at the end of the day.
And if nothing else it's generated plenty of column inches which is partly what it's all about.
I would have been more disappointed if we had come up with something bland that worked well on a piece of paper, but rubbish on line, or on a phone, etc etc.
The new brand is growing on me, the more it gets slagged off!
Rothko mate, your a defender of all things related to the bid. If it had been a picture of Anne Widdicombe shaving her underarms you would of said it was bold and imaginative !!
Its crap, no disguising it and they've made a huge ricket.
I would have been more disappointed if we had come up with something bland that worked well on a piece of paper, but rubbish on line, or on a phone, etc etc.
The new brand is growing on me, the more it gets slagged off!
I agree. Clearly they were trying to avoid the typical tried and tested Games logo which looks nice on a polo shirt for a middle-aged gardener. Whether they've gone too far in the opposition direction, time will tell but at least they've gone for something unique.
[cite]Posted By: AFKA Bartram[/cite]Rothko mate, your a defender of all things related to the bid. If it had been a picture of Anne Widdicombe shaving her underarms you would of said it was bold and imaginative !!
Its crap, no disguising it and they've made a huge ricket.
I would have said it was shit, but the new brand isn't shit, ok it appeals to the british 'We don't change' mentally to slag it off, but they've had the bollocks to go for something unique as Kinveachy has said.
Sponsors will like it, as it's the first time they've had a logo their allowed to use in there own coroprate colours, it works outside the static media, and it's got to last 5 years in a changing media landscape.
But yeah, I'll defend it, cause on Netaddicks, we had the 'we won't win', then 'we don't want it' and now a moan about a brand which isn't going to appeal to 30 somethings from the home counties!
So are we at the stage where no one is entitled to say something is poor anymore, because the response will always be that the British people just simply like to knock things ?? My approach will always be to look for the positives, but this looks such a poor representation and link to what should be the best event staged in this country in nearly 50 years.
At some stage in the consultation someone should of raised doubts about whether its attempt to be innovative and appeal to the young, was simply too far. The Olympics generally is about tradition, and tradition should be one of the major selling points of London. The closeness to swastikas and cartoon characters giving blow jobs should also of been picked up and raised concerns as well.
Of course there will always be people who don't like things, but its rare you get 90-odd % not liking things and there is normally a mistake been made when you do.
[cite]Posted By: AFKA Bartram[/cite]So are we at the stage where no one is entitled to say something is poor anymore, because the response will always be that the British people just simply like to knock things ?? My approach will always be to look for the positives, but this looks such a poor representation and link to what should be the best event staged in this country in nearly 50 years.
At some stage in the consultation someone should of raised doubts about whether its attempt to be innovative and appeal to the young, was simply too far. The Olympics generally is about tradition, and tradition should be one of the major selling points of London. The closeness to swastikas and cartoon characters giving blow jobs should also of been picked up and raised concerns as well.
Of course there will always be people who don't like things, but its rare you get 90-odd % not liking things and there is normally a mistake been made when you do.
I'll take a rougher guess, that it's near 90% of the population that frankly don't give a shit?
People can knock it, fine, but then expect some people to come in and defend it, it seem the other problem is that it can only be a one way street, slag it off to your hearts content, but then when someone comes back with an alternative view on it, don't slag that off.
Is London a traditional city anymore? is it all Beefeaters, Tower of London and changing of the guards? or is it now a city of interesting buildings, innovative design, modern art and cosmopolitan young mix of people?
As for the Olympics being traditional, the decision to give the games to London was one not based on tradition, if they wanted an Olympics by the book, they would have gone to Paris, they wanted something different, and that's why they decided to on London.
Comments
cheers everyone!
We've just set up with the sole ambition to take as many mug companies for as much money as possible. LuvvlyJubbly
BTW - Radio London reporting that Dogs are having Epileptic attacks when the animation is shown on TV - I kid you not!
Honestly! We couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery!
Link
one things for sure, its probably been the biggest marketing disaster ever
Got to agree with Ladykiller that this is the best one.
Shows the venue, year and date. Very traditional yet modern
They also did the branding for Orange, which could be argued has been one of the most successful brands in the UK.
Every company screws up, but then I do think the logo has less to do with BT failures, then the screw ups in the boardroom at the time
but this happens with just about any new logo/coin/portrait of the queen/building produced in this country.
It's one of our national sports along with moaning about the degenerate rude kids of today, binge drinking and blaming most things on Johny foreigner.
I blame Henry VIII for the reformation and by doing so creating a literature rather then visual based culture.
Far from being a disaster they are most likely delighted that just about everyone in the country has now seen and knows the logo which is what brand recognition is all about.
It's bold, brash and different which everything 2012 is supposed to be.
They could have produced something along the lines of the nice one above 'we've got the Olympics in us' but that's all been done before and I think the IOC were expecting London to come up with something totally fresh which is what they've done - that's why we managed to pip Paris at the end of the day.
And if nothing else it's generated plenty of column inches which is partly what it's all about.
I thought we pipped paris because one of the delegates pressed the wrong button
fat fingers?
I would have been more disappointed if we had come up with something bland that worked well on a piece of paper, but rubbish on line, or on a phone, etc etc.
The new brand is growing on me, the more it gets slagged off!
Its crap, no disguising it and they've made a huge ricket.
The new brand is growing on me, the more it gets slagged off!
[img]http://www.london2012.com/img/park.jpg[/img][/quote]
I agree. Clearly they were trying to avoid the typical tried and tested Games logo which looks nice on a polo shirt for a middle-aged gardener.
Whether they've gone too far in the opposition direction, time will tell but at least they've gone for something unique.
I would have said it was shit, but the new brand isn't shit, ok it appeals to the british 'We don't change' mentally to slag it off, but they've had the bollocks to go for something unique as Kinveachy has said.
Sponsors will like it, as it's the first time they've had a logo their allowed to use in there own coroprate colours, it works outside the static media, and it's got to last 5 years in a changing media landscape.
But yeah, I'll defend it, cause on Netaddicks, we had the 'we won't win', then 'we don't want it' and now a moan about a brand which isn't going to appeal to 30 somethings from the home counties!
LOL! Someone should photoshop this with the Olympic rings formed around her nipples and then submit it to the BBC site!!
Not at lunch time, please!
At some stage in the consultation someone should of raised doubts about whether its attempt to be innovative and appeal to the young, was simply too far. The Olympics generally is about tradition, and tradition should be one of the major selling points of London. The closeness to swastikas and cartoon characters giving blow jobs should also of been picked up and raised concerns as well.
Of course there will always be people who don't like things, but its rare you get 90-odd % not liking things and there is normally a mistake been made when you do.
I'll take a rougher guess, that it's near 90% of the population that frankly don't give a shit?
People can knock it, fine, but then expect some people to come in and defend it, it seem the other problem is that it can only be a one way street, slag it off to your hearts content, but then when someone comes back with an alternative view on it, don't slag that off.
Is London a traditional city anymore? is it all Beefeaters, Tower of London and changing of the guards? or is it now a city of interesting buildings, innovative design, modern art and cosmopolitan young mix of people?
As for the Olympics being traditional, the decision to give the games to London was one not based on tradition, if they wanted an Olympics by the book, they would have gone to Paris, they wanted something different, and that's why they decided to on London.
a very good rebuff.