BBC HomeExplore the BBC
This page has been archived and is no longer updated. Find out more about page archiving.

28 October 2014

BBC Homepage

Local BBC Sites

Neighbouring Sites

Related BBC Sites

Contact Us

2012 Features

You are in: London > 2012 Olympic Games > 2012 Features > 2012 logo: Six months on

Olympic 2012 logo

2012 logo: Six months on

When Lord Coe unveiled the official 2012 Olympic logo he said it was "ambitious, interactive and youth-friendly." Many of you disagreed. Six months on, what do you think now? Has it grown on you? Send us your comments.

The logo, designed by the consultancy Wolff Ollins, cost £400,000 and was intended to project a youthful and vibrant image of our capital city. It will represent London, and all of its values, to the rest of the world.

Of the dozens of comments sent in to the BBC London website six months ago, the overwhelming majority were negative, bordering on the hostile. Here are just a couple of them:

Paul Judd

"I am shocked and stunned at the lack of imagination and creativity that has gone into this. A bunch of business/design exec sat in a room eating take out thai food without a clue how to communicate to the common man... if I were a teacher grading this I would say 'very poor effort, please see me after class.'"

Mary Aisbitt

"A definite NO!! The person/people who designed the logo should be made to pay back the money they received. I am outraged, as I guess are millions of other people, by the final design. The logo should have been designed by the public and chosen by the public. By such a method the £400,000 reportedly spent on such rubbish would not have been wasted and we would have seen someone delighted to have recognition without the necessity of any financial gain."

And then there was the revelation that the animated logo could trigger epilepsy...

Six Months On

Despite the negative response from the public and the media, Lord Coe, chairman of the 2012 games organising committee was stubbornly defending the design. Six months ago Lord Coe said:

"It won't be to be eveybody's taste immediately but it's a brand that we genuinely believe can be a hard working brand which builds on pretty much everything we said in Singapore about reaching out and engaging young people, which is where our challenge is over the next five years."

So, whether we liked it or not, the 2012 Olympic logo is now a part of our lives. What do you think now? Have you grown to love it? Or is it still just as bad as you had originally thought?

Your Views

I do not hate the Olympics logo, after a while I do actually like it. But as a logo, not as a symbol of something that the world is going to see. There should have at least been some sophistication in it.

The thing that angers me is the £400,000 it cost to design it. I could have designed it like many other members of the public and it would have looked so much better. The money could have at least been used to put a roof on the Olympic stadium!!!! After all, we are going to need it!

Martyn, E2

It was rubbish and it still is. OK, so the powers that spent nearly half a million pounds (how does that break down?) on this, cannot admit to such a corporate mugging. It still does not say 2012. You have to work that out, once you already know what it is the logo for (so what kind of a brand is that? Its like the ad that everyone knows, but no-one knows what it's for). It could be anything, even the Olympic sign is minute. The 2012 still looks more like the allusion that J.Ross gave it, and that what the games will be, if this is not ditched, or the original design given a (fee-free and apologetic?) makeover.

Malcolm, E17

As with most things in life, good or bad you do get used to it. As horrendous as the olympic logo is, its here to stay thanks to the stubborn attitude of the powers that be. It is certainly recognisable and unique but primarily due to it being so bad. There is virtually no link between the logo and London bar the tagged on afterthought. The colour scheme is incredibly vulgar and the promotional video is remembered for triggering epileptic fits more than promoting the concept and ideas behind the design.

Considering £400,000 was spent on it, so called experts and design consultants, it's a sad reflection of the incredulous poor planning, organisation and management behind the whole Olympic bid. It is disgraceful how costs for funding the building of the Olympic stadium and the other sporting facilities are exponentially increasing out of budget to the point we have to source funding via increasing council taxes and reallocation of lottery fund causes. Simulataneously, it seems we are opting for the most budget and basic options when it comes to the design and building of these facilities. Forget a state of the art Olympic stadium with sliding roof - lets have a simple basic sports stadium with temp canvas roof. What about the plans for state of the art swimming pool with wave style designed roofing? Too expensive, just a bigger leisure pool in standard block building then shall we?

One only needs to look at the innovation and effort provided by China's Beijing 2008 preparations to feel decidedly inferior. The Beijing logo has ties to both the host city and the origins of the Olympic rings/colours whilst the main Olympic 'Birds nest' Stadium is both innovative and beautiful. An Olympics to be proud of? I worry its just going to be one shambolic and costly experience for all....

Gary Tsui

My opinion is that the designers were trying to counter one of London's stereotypes of being traditional, old, dull and drab, and the antithesis of modern and exciting.
However, in an attempt to be playful, energetic, and current, they abandoned any sense of sophistication, and giving the brand deeper meaning. The result is childish, superficial and not least of all ugly.

Justin Ogle

last updated: 19/05/2008 at 16:27
created: 04/12/2007

You are in: London > 2012 Olympic Games > 2012 Features > 2012 logo: Six months on

About the BBC | Help | Terms of Use | Privacy & Cookies Policy