One thought on “Jumping on the 2012 Bandwagon

  1. I couldn’t agree more. Coudal Partners might like to add “apologist” to their resume.

    Let me respond with 10 (I could have listed more!) reasons why we SHOULDN’T love this disgusting, overpriced 5-minute worthless garbage:

    1) It says nothing about London (other than the Comic-sans reproduction of the word).
    2) It says nothing about the Olympics (as you rightly pointed out, take out the rings and this logo stands for?)
    3) It fails the most basic of logo design, in that it is not instantly recognisable (listen to the amount of people complaining that they didn’t realise the shapes were supposed to resemble 2012). ZOR anyone?
    4) The colour? These colours DID NOT look good, even in the 1980’s. They may remind us of the 80’s, but they still suck HARD.
    5) The jagged, broken look says what about the London Olympics?
    6) Whereas it may RESEMBLE graffiti, it isn’t. Young people will see this as patronising and could alienate the very people it is supposed to connect with.
    7) It is plain ugly. When reproduced more than 10% of the screen size it actually causes the eye to look away. Logos should DRAW the eye.
    8) The 2’s are completely different, thus reinforcing the ZOR problem, and the 0 is a pretty good cubism representation of Australia. Great if your advertising Sydney, not so great for London.
    9) Lisa Simpson on her knees? Really. Did NO ONE see this before major release?
    10) This pathetic attempt was created by Wolff Olins, who describe themselves as “the world’s most influential brand business” at a cost of £400,000. Sorry, but £400,000 should deliver more than something that looks like it was scribbled on the back of a napkin, and it should look like it was designed using the foremost tools in the industry – not cheap fluorescent pens…

Comments are closed.