How Unlimited Budgets Lead To Failures
London organizes the 2012 Olympic Games.
Although everybody in the whole world instantly recognizes the 5 Olympic rings, the organising committee thought it useful to have their own ‘London’ logo developed.
Well ok, the Olympics are big business, so a London specific logo, promoting the city could very well be in place.
This week the logo was presented. It took almost a year to create.
Organisers hope the brand will boost the marketing push to raise £2bn to stage the Games and convey the message that London 2012 will be “Everyone’s Games”.
Yeah, right, everyone’s games.
So what did the UK Olympic Committee do to have this emblem accepted by a wide audience?
Did they involve the public? Did they hold a contest? Were schoolchildren told to make a nice drawing so their parents could get involved too?
No, don’t think so.
The order to design a logo was given to the Wolff Olins agency and they did so at a cost of a whopping 400,000 pounds!!!
Yep, I told you already, Olympics are big business, so we don’t mind a few pennies more. Very often cost-consciousness is disproportionate to unlimited budgets.
So, how was this logo received by the public?
Well, Claire Stocks – Interactive editor, Olympic sports of the BBC, in a typical English understatement reports “New 2012 logo sparks huge response”.
At the time of writing this, there were 3309 comments at the BBC 606 webpage. I didn’t read them all, just a few of the 166 pages. Two of the best I read were:
Looks just like a window I recently kicked a ball through.
and
Looks like a bloke banging his head against his computer screen to me…
Well, so far the reaction of the public. There’s even a petition to change the logo with close to 32,000 signatures at the time of writing this post.
So, how does the UK committee handle this problem?
Answer: testimonials!
“This is the vision at the very heart of our brand,”
London 2012 organising committee chairman Sebastian Coe.
“When people see the new brand, we want them to be inspired to make a positive change in their life.”
Tony Blair
“This is a truly innovative brand logo that graphically captures the essence of the London 2012 Olympic Games – namely to inspire young people around the world through sport and the Olympic values.”
International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge
There’s a lot more of this nonsense at the BBC Sport page, even from an Olympics Minister!
But that’s not all.
A segment of animated footage promoting the 2012 Olympic Games has been removed from the organisers’ website after fears it could trigger epileptic fits.
A London 2012 spokeswoman emphasised that it was not the logo itself which was the focus of worries, she said: “This concerns a short piece of animation which we used as part of the logo launch event and not the actual logo.”
Yeah, right.
Amateurish was another British understated comment. I would say ‘disaster’. It shows that unlimited budgets cause brain damage. It results in a total power failure of the discerning neurons.
I guess the UK Olympic committee will get away with it, but if this was Internet marketing, it would be a big failure.
What do you think?
Post your comments.
Related Articles:
2. Then, you can RETWEET this Post
3. Share this post by clicking the button:
Frankly, I think it’s a disgrace that we should have spent this much money on a logo, when the original bid logo, or some adaptation thereof, would surely have been good enough. I’m all for the 2012 Olympics, but it is a luxury and spending should be viewed in this light, with expenditure being sensible, responsible and frugal. As such, it’s appalling that £400k has be squandered on something that is, at the end of the day, just a logo for a one time event. Galling though it is, I suspect you’re right, the UK Olympic Committee will get away with it.
As for what I think of the logo – my sentiment is probably best encapsulated in this amusing and acerbic adaptation!
[Nice blog, BTW]