BBC BLOGS - David Bond
« Previous | Main | Next »

Will 2012 mascots be lucky for London?

Post categories:

David Bond | 10:17 UK time, Wednesday, 19 May 2010

For something which is ultimately just a bit of fun, organisers of the London 2012 Games are taking the launch of their mascots for the Olympics and Paralympics incredibly seriously.

Most people will not judge the events on the quality of the fluffy toys you can buy in one of the many Olympic merchandising stores between now and 27 July, 2012. What will be far more important will be how many medals Team GB wins, the overall London experience during the Games, the stadiums and ticket prices.

However, the mascot has become significant for London for a number of reasons.

The first is the opportunity it presents to lay to rest the fiasco of the logo.

Jose Mourinho and Lord Coe pose in front of the London 2012 logoJose Mourinho and Lord Coe pose in front of the London 2012 logo

Even now, people are still baffled by the £400,000, graffiti-style design that was launched amid much outcry in 2007. Since then, London 2012 bosses have insisted the logo, created by brand agency Wolff Ollins, has become a hit, pointing to the flexible way it has been used by sponsors.

They also claim they have learned the lesson from the logo launch, where lawyers prevented them from showing the design in all its various formats for fear of piracy, as they attempt to avoid another negative public backlash.

That's why Olympic organisers are so anxious to reveal the story behind the mascots, which are formed from two drops of steel used to make the Olympic Stadium in Stratford.

They have hired leading children's writer Michael Morpurgo, author of the hugely successful War Horse novel that has now been adapted for stage, to construct a back story for the characters.

Given the reaction to the logo, it would have been tempting for London to play it safe and go for the sort of cuddly animal usually associated with major sports events (Berlino the Bear at the 2009 World Athletics Championships in Berlin, for example).

Berlino the Bear was a big hit at the World Athletics ChampionshipsBerlino the Bear was a hit with athletes and spectators alike. Photo: Getty Images

But as London Organising Committee (Locog) chairman Lord Coe has already told the BBC, the mascot is a crucial part of the overall ambition to use these Games to reconnect children with sport - and Locog is prepared to take risks to achieve that.

If successful, it would not be the first time a left-field approach has paid off. In Barcelona in 1992, Cobi the cubist dog proved a huge hit for avant-garde artist Javier Mariscal. Interestingly, Michael Payne, the respected former head of marketing for the International Olympic Committee, initially vetoed the design, thinking it would never catch on.

If London's mascots take off, they can become an important part of Locog's commercial strategy. The logo and mascots are the two key drivers behind the capital's merchandising and licensing operation.

London 2012 will make money from selling goods carrying the logo or the mascot design as well as from companies who pay them 6 to 7% in royalties for the right to use them on their products.

In total, London 2012 aim to raise about £70m in this way. It is not a huge amount when one considers their £2bn budget and the £620m they have raised from sponsors already, but it is not insignificant.

One of the questions Locog will surely face is whether all the money from their merchandising operation should go to help pay for the bill for staging the Olympics. Should £1 from every mascot sold, for example, go to a London 2012 charity or to help fund our team at the Games?

But the mascot is more than just a money-making device. It is another symbol of the type of Olympics London will stage and a useful tool to remind people that the Games are getting closer.

Get it right and it will become part of an overall feel-good factor around the Games. Get it wrong and it could join the logo and the budget as another embarrassing setback.

Update, Wednesday, 1900 BST

Most people will probably react with bewilderment when they see London 2012's mascots Mandeville and Wenlock for the first time.

But after seeing the one-eyed alien-like characters in animated form and hearing the back story by former children's laureate Michael Morpurgo, they may well be won over.

Surprisingly perhaps, the reaction at this afternoon's launch at St Paul's primary school in Whitechapel, East London, was, on the whole, positive. A room of cynical hacks is not always the best place to judge whether something is going to be a hit or not but there was a far more instant and negative reaction to the logo three years ago.

Wenlock and Mandeville

And ultimately, as Locog chief executive Paul Deighton said, middle-aged blokes in suits are not really best placed to judge the impact of a concept aimed at their kids. On that score the reaction from the 100 or so children who watched the film with us in the assembly hall was overwhelmingly enthusiastic.

The names received universal approval. They are drawn from the small town in Shropshire which hosted the Much Wenlock Games and which inspired Baron Pierre de Coubertin to found the modern Olympics and Stoke Mandeville, birthplace of the Paralympics. The idea here is to connect the futuristic creatures to Britain's rich Olympic past.

And whatever you think of the Pokemon style forms, Locog are confident they will be embraced by web-literate kids who will follow them and engage with them on social media networks like facebook and twitter. London 2012 also hope their two year journey to the Games will encourage them to try Olympic sports.

But their only real measure of success will be if they make money for Locog who confirmed today that no proceeds from the sale of replicas or goods containing their image would go to charity or any other Olympic causes such as helping to fund Team GB.

Locog say they could make up to £15m from the mascots - a small fraction of the overall £2bn budget, but no small sum either.

What do you think of them?

Take a look at Olympic mascots through the ages.


Page 1 of 2

  • Comment number 1.

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

  • Comment number 2.

    This mascot was considered absolute rubbish by the majority of the public when it was first suggested and it is still rubbish, you can polish it all you like and it will still be the same, no one has listened to the public voice!!!

  • Comment number 3.

    "From two drops of steel"? I'm intrigued to see if they'll be child friendly then ... let's hope the reaction doesn't spawn hundreds of 'anti' Facebook groups.

  • Comment number 4.

    It still looks like a toileting monkey!

  • Comment number 5.

    London 2012 will make money from selling goods carrying the logo or the mascot design as well as from companies who pay them 6 to 7% in royalties for the right to use them on their produce.
    I wish, as a company who has secured the rights to produce London 2012 merchandise, our (and alot of other manufacturer's) royalty rate is 15%, plus a further 2% that we have to pay to LOCOG to pay for the marketing of the games.

  • Comment number 6.

    Lisa Simpson?

  • Comment number 7.

    Just keep it simple and to the point, my idea is for 'Leon the Lion'

    Done ...

    That'll be £100 000 please

  • Comment number 8.

    "Since then, London 2012 bosses have insisted the logo, created by brand agency Wolff Ollins, has become a hit, pointing to the flexible way it has been used by sponsors"

    ...Since there was no attempt to submit an alternative, sponsors are forced to use the logo - that doesn't alter the fact that it was and remains a shockingly bad design. It has prompted me to resolve not to buy any merchandise that bears that awful badge. Not what the Olympic organisers want to hear but they should have picked a more acceptable emblem.

  • Comment number 9.

    Wow the moderators have really gone to town with this thread

  • Comment number 10.

    I guess Lord Coe and his cronies can afford to take things like mascots seriously. After all, it's not their money that's paying for it.

    It's ours. All 9 billion quid of it (plus however much they go over their budget).

    Is it just me who thinks that's not the brightest way to be spending money in the middle of the biggest recession since the 1930s?

  • Comment number 11.

    Whatever the mascot turnes out to be, it is sure to be derided as ugly and pointless by the people who seem to enjoy finding any excuse to criticize practically every aspect of these olympics

  • Comment number 12.

    Still using this god awful monstrosity that the public have said they cannot stand.

  • Comment number 13.

    I don't think that anyone wants to buy something with a pornographic Lisa Simpson image on it.

  • Comment number 14.

    This is the worst designed logo of all time !

    I wont be interested in the games because of this

  • Comment number 15.

    I absolutely hate the logo. So I'm not holding out much hope for the mascot or the games.

  • Comment number 16.

    In order to satisfy(!) the moderators I have to be careful.

    It still looks to me like Lisa Simpson providing a service.

    £400,000 ... it's a lot of money for a job like that.

  • Comment number 17.

    I recognise that the moderators wish to avoid language that might offend, but what most people dislike about the logo is that it does look like it might offend - to whit, Lisa Simpson doing something that apparently can't be mentioned on a BBC comments page. Can we please talk about this?

  • Comment number 18.

    I am intrigued to see how the mascot can follow the Lisa Simpson logo, whih to be fair was a great talking point.

  • Comment number 19.

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

  • Comment number 20.

    Well if the promo video I came across is anything to go by, they're going to be fairly bland: [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

  • Comment number 21.

    The London 2012 bosses are just a joke, they seem to have foregone common sense because they're all to wrapped up in the knowledge that they are in charge of something worldwide, doesn't matter how they do it, but they're in charge, ohhhh right!

  • Comment number 22.

    I have never loathed anything (still) quite so much as this awful logo! It actually makes me embarrassed to be British and if I see it on any product I choose an alternative. My daughter, a young club athlete herself, was going to open a bank account with Nat West until she spotted it and went elsewhere.

  • Comment number 23.

    This is sadly what the Olympics has become? Selling over priced junk and marketing an over priced logo to companies. How sad is that!

  • Comment number 24.

    I'm fed up with the level of negativity towards anything even slightly interesting people keep showing to the Olympics. The logo has enormously more character and life than any of the very dull alternatives that were immediately proposed when it appeared and I love the new tower that's been designed for the park and which makes the stadium alongside it look very boring.

    Anyone can produce a design which is safe, doesn't rock the boat now and will look very dull in even 2 years when we reach the games, let alone years down the line when we're trying to get the most from the legacy of the games. What we've seen so far is anything but dull and I think will retain freshness for the lifetime of the logo, and I hope they'll go for a mascot in the same spirit.

  • Comment number 25.

    "Two drops of steel" anyone else reminded of "Springy" the Springfield Olympic mascot?

    Let's face it, if they come up with an Olympic Lion they will get abuse for spending silly amounts of money on something so obvious, if they don't come up with an Olympic Lion then it will be "wrong and it could join the logo and the budget as another embarrassing setback".

    And as for the logo becoming a hit, I have to wonder what world you are living in to think that four chunky numbers costing £400,000 are ever going to constitute a hit for the majority of the tax-paying public who funded it.

  • Comment number 26.

    "Since then, London 2012 bosses have insisted the logo, created by brand agency Wolff Ollins, has become a hit, pointing to the flexible way it has been used by sponsors."

    You mean, like any other officially endorsed logo would have? In the same way that a logo that was substantially worse (god knows how that would be possible) would have been used if we were told it was the official symbol?

    Lets just hope the mascots are better, although I'm not holding out any hope that the people in charge can actually choose any better than they did over the logo.

    That statement should be taken out and shot. Along with the people who designed, the people who approved and the people who paid for the logo.

  • Comment number 27.

    15. At 1:28pm on 19 May 2010, Onisillos Sekkides wrote:
    I absolutely hate the logo. So I'm not holding out much hope for the mascot or the games.


    This is an absolutely ridiculous view to take. Because the logo is not to your taste you will just knock down the mascot and indeed the games before they have even begun! It is views like this which really annoy me, celebrate the fact that your country has the games and support them. I totally agree with philman132, why must everyone find something to criticise about this olympics? Just try and support it and you never know, you might enjoy it!

  • Comment number 28.

    Urghhh.. they're STILL using that garbage as a logo?!! Look, I've got a terrific way to sort this, and the best bit is, it doesn't avoid spending anything. Just launch a national competition for drawing a new logo/mascot. Put it up on the official website, with the entries simply emailed in, and have those entries initially judged by the web admins / moderators to make sure they're suitable.

    Then the winner is chosen by Lord Coe (or some Olympic committee who are already being paid for anyway) The winner gets their logo/mascot used, gets a guided tour of the stadium by the committee members (which is also followed by the press), and is given free tickets for the opening night.

    There. Didn't cost a penny (other than admin costs you were going to have anyway), gets the kids involved, and doesn't look like a complete mess.

  • Comment number 29.

    Get over the logo, for goodness sake, you and all the replies. It's done its job more than anyone could have expected; recognised the world over, fantastic ideas behind it's use on some of the merchandise already and it stands out from the crowd of boring lgos that go unnoticed every day.

    For once, please write something positive about London 2012. I'm sick and tired of the same old tat dished out by every journalist. Thankfully none of this rubbish will ever knock my shear excitment at the olympics taking place a few miles down the road from where I live.

  • Comment number 30.

    I was living in Sydney during the 2000 Olympics, and a late-night satirical TV show produced its own mascot (Fatso the wombat) to rival the three rather ghastly official mascots. Fatso became quite popular, much to the annoyance of the games's sponsors - they actually ended up banning athletes from standing on the podium with Fatso! So I hope if our mascot is horrid, some enterprising wit will come up with an alternative...

  • Comment number 31.

    I must say I didn't notice the Lisa Simpson look until I googled an image, but I have to agree with a previous commentator. This discussion is about the mascot - as yet unseen - and NOT the logo! They are two different things.

    The mascot is usually a cuddly animal of some kind, with some kind of connection to the host nation. It is highly marketable - sometimes much more so than the official logo. Some are very unimaginative, but I do have a softspot for "pique", the Mexico '86 mascot. That was of course the football world cup.

    So if London is going to be daring and inventive, then bravo to them. I don't know what the hell "two drops of steel" means, but as long as the mascot is relevant, has personality, and is fun then they'll be O.K.

    BTW I don't mind the logo either. It does look a little edgy.

  • Comment number 32.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 33.

    Have to chuckle at people getting so worked up about logos and mascots.

    Correctomundo - 'I have never loathed anything (still) quite so much as this awful logo! It actually makes me embarrassed to be British'

    Really!! Why not get worked up over something worthwhile like schools; hospitals; environment etc.

  • Comment number 34.

    The mascot should be something British, instantly recognisable, and loved by the public. In a word: Zippy.

  • Comment number 35.

    Er... can we SEE the mascot, so as to be able to comment on it?

    The logo still looks like a mugging in progress.

    But these are not what interest me when it comes to the Olympics. What I want to see is athletes from around the world demonstrating superlative skill in their chosen sport. I don't care what nation they come from, and I don't want to buy piles of junk!

    Oh, and I would expect the proceeds from selling souvenirs to those who DO want them to go towards paying for the games.

  • Comment number 36.

    I don't know what every bodies problem is!?!

    If people actually look at the last 10 Olympic logos they can see that they are rubbish! Compared to them ours is unique, interesting and bold.

    I suppose the British are doing what the British do best MOANING!!!!

    Only the British can win something and complain about it for years to come be it; the Olympic tower, the logo, the mascot, the disruption to travel, the money spent!!

    I hope the mascot is a lion and Leo the lion sound fun! But if it's not that, and its something completely different I'm not going to be upset, just except it!

    Lets just enjoy the run up to the Olympics and all these interesting buildings, designs and innovations that are happening around us!!

  • Comment number 37.

    There are posters saying they won't be part of the Olympics because the logo is so shockingly bad. Posters are already throwing in their digs at the not yet seen mascot. Amazing, it really is amazing how much people moan. Is it possible to round up all these whiners and ship them off to a third world country...for good. I mean what's wrong with giving them real issues to be upset about. Seriously people, get a life and stop b*tching about everything (and yes, I’m sure you do b*tch about everything).

  • Comment number 38.

    I for one won't be buying any merchandise with Lisa Simpson on it. Is this a case of the king in his new clothes and can these people really not see what to the rest of us is so obvious. I thought Lord Coe was a reasonably sensible man but obviously I was mistaken, unless that is what he is laughing at in the photo?

  • Comment number 39.

    Well, I'm not really sure how they could do much worse than a logo that, quite frankly, looks like Lisa Simpson/a person throwing up after a heavy night out, so I've got some renewed hope about this.

    Don't get me wrong - I think that the fact we're going to be hosting an Olympiad is absolutely brilliant, and I'm really looking forward to it. I just wish it hadn't cost so much money and that some of said money hadn't been wasted on making one of the worst logos in the history of the Modern Games, as well as that tower restaurant they're set to build (is that actually meant to look nice?). It's an eyesore.

    To summarise, I'm really happy we won the right to host, but I just really think that there have been so many wrong decisions that have been made regarding the practical side of things.

  • Comment number 40.

    I sincerely hope that it is not too late to withdraw this ridiculous logo before Britain becomes a global laughing stock.
    In reality, i fear that the 'logo' will be re-launched regardless of public opinion, demonstrating how important profit is compared to the views of the country. The London bosses can say what they like but it will not change the fact that the 'logo' is farcical. Throwing good money after bad will not remedy an awful design concept.

    The emperor’s clothes tale springs to mind…

  • Comment number 41.

    I sometimes think people don't realise what a logo is.

    Will you recognise it when you see it? YES

    Will you ever mistake it for something else? No.

    So what are you complaining about? Issues of whether you like it or not are utterly secondary

  • Comment number 42.

    its very trendy not to like a logo. It's very easy to say "why did this cost so much, isn't it rubbish, etc"

    I actually like ours, a great deal.

    I like the way different sponsors use the colors and the way they fade - better than any other major sporting logo in my (humble) opinion.

    I don't tend to like mascots (at 36 I'm a bit too old I suppose), but hope it is as good.

  • Comment number 43.

    Doesn't the London 2012 logo look like Lisa Simpson on her knees doing something she shouldn't?

  • Comment number 44.

    What a pointless article about nothing. What is the point of having a blog about something which we have yet to see. I'm somewhat confused. Maybe this blog would make more sense if we had something to look at rather than try and visualise 2 drops of steel that suddenly become mascots loved by young and old alike.

    This is not a blog about a dodgy logo or mascots. It's a blog about nothing. Phew - lazy journalism? Can I have your job please?

  • Comment number 45.

    Jo Lee (#9) wrote:

    "This is the worst designed logo of all time !

    I wont be interested in the games because of this"


    Perpective, please! I have to pity someone who has decided that London 2012 has been ruined on account of a marketing squiggle.

    I'm no great fan of the logo. I do understand what they were trying to do - you don't want one of those rubbish ones that as Coe rightly said at the time - would result in T-Shirts pensioners wore to do the gardening in at a weekend - but it was poorly executed and gave the impression of a bunch of middle-aged men trying to be cool.

    Mind you, advertisers do like the logo because they can use their own colour scheme in it. The other point is that - though most impressions were negative - the logo did at least make an impression and raise awareness. There was a study done by a marketing group last year, I think, which showed remarkable recognition levels for the logo, up there with some of the biggest brands in the country. Thats the thing with advertising - it doesn't always have to be good. Getting noticed is half the battle.

  • Comment number 46.

    I still think the alternative logos here:

    in particular the one with the hoops above the black word London, were far far superior to the awful official logo. And what is even more galling is that Mr You and Me paid £400,000 for a design agency to create it. Mind-boggling.

  • Comment number 47.

    Lisa Simpson
    Lip Service

    Perhaps I am allowed to use those unconnected words...

  • Comment number 48.

    i can guarantee you that when you see the mascot, the words "what the ..." will pop into your head and think 'why havent they just kept the darn thing simple? - how hard is it to mess up something that could be so easy!!". guaranteed.

  • Comment number 49.

  • Comment number 50.

    And how much of the royalties will go to the very Londoners who've paid for the games in the first place through their taxes? None.

    @Dom - I think most people's problem with the logo is that it looks like it was drawn up in 5 minutes yet the bill was £400k, rather than the design on its own.

  • Comment number 51.

    Even by BBC standards this page has lured our the knee jerk comments and incredible hysterical exageration:

    "I have never loathed anything (still) quite so much as this awful logo!"

    Really? Adolf Hitler? Idi Amin? Ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia? Less hateful to you than the logo?

    "This is the worst designed logo of all time !
    I wont be interested in the games because of this""

    Your interest in the games depends totally on the quality of the logo? REALLY!!!!

    However it does look like Lisa Simpson doing something the mods won't allow me to say.

  • Comment number 52.

    It doesn't say 2012. It says Zion - even has a dot for the I.

  • Comment number 53.

    I am really looking forward to seeing what the London 2012 Olympics mascot is and I bet the rest of the world will be keep 2 c what is the 2012 mascot. Now just only two and a bit years left time the 2012 Olympics starts.
    Mascots may give London a boost in the running towards the Olympics.
    I got a feeling the colour of the mascot will be pink so that it matches with the colour of the 2012 Olympic Logo!

  • Comment number 54.

    Hmmm - I've just decided that I don't care!

  • Comment number 55.

    It still looks just like Leroy Lockhorn.

  • Comment number 56.

    why not have david cameron as a mascot?, everyone seems to laugh at him :P

  • Comment number 57.

    I still can't understand why they didn't have a Blue Peter competition to decide what the logo and mascots would look like.

    It would have got millions of kids involved and the award of a gold badge and a few tickets to the winner would have been far cheaper than the ridiculous amounts given to an advertising company.

    As for the games themselves, I can't wait, I just hope I'll be able to afford a ticket or two myself, somehow I doubt it though.

  • Comment number 58.

    I can't wait for the Olympics to come to London, I really can't I've been an avid fan of the competition ever since I was old enough to know what was going on, and think the spirit that the games themselves - not the sponsorship etc. (McDonald's anyone? Athletes eat it, honest!) - encapsulate is something we could all use more of.


    So far, everything about London 2012's PR has been at best embarrassing and at worst, a complete and utter disaster. I'm sure there are a number of people who like the 'logo', but the majority of public opinion I heard about it at the time and to this day was that it was a cheap-looking, poorly thought out, ugly abomination that (as someone else has pointed out already) simply made you think of a room full of middle-aged suits trying to connect with the Yoof. Good intentions, diabolical execution. I could number all the reasons I think it's a complete waste of 400K but I don't want to have to argue the toss with the modern-art types who'd see intrinsic meaning in a pile of dirty clothes, or the 'at least it's a good talking point / there's no such thing as bad press' crowd. I'm sorry, but if the only reason someone notices it is to laugh at how shoddy it looks and then draw the blatant Lisa Simpson analogy, that is NOT good press for our city or the games themselves. We're a laughing stock over it, and you and I paid for it.

    Similarly, the tower is another modern art mess. It looks like a melted bowel with a pie-tray lodged in it; and for every one person saying they think it's fresh, innovative and will stand the test of time I could produce a hundred others who think that it is (again) ugly, poorly conceived and without any artistic merit whatsoever. The funniest comment I remember hearing was something along the lines of "it looks like a drunk toddler has been at the Meccano".

    Of course we're here to talk about the mascot and not those two eyesores - but from the sounds of it ("formed from two drops of melted steel" - riiiiiight), we're about to be treated to yet another abomination that's the result of an overpaid, out of his box blue-sky designer who was paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to come up with something that a teenager with Photoshop could have done better (and in the case of the logo, did - Google the alternatives, some of them are fantastic).

    I'm not moaning about the games being in London, and I would absolutely love to be proven wrong about the mascot - but given the track record of the committee so far, I'm not hopeful.

    Seriously - elegance and simplicity with ACTUAL meaning (as opposed to the aforementioned modern-art kind, where anything at all can be attached to... well, anything at all) inspire and endure. Faddish attempts to reach out to youth culture within what is essentially a corporate event will always look like hollow, poorly informed and ultimately ugly.

  • Comment number 59.

    I don't like the logo at all, but I appreciate that that's just a personal view. It's bold, it's distinctive, granted. But does it make me "buy into" the Games and make me feel good about it? No. Quite the opposite, in fact. If that's just my view, then no worries. If that's the view of a large portion of people, then the logo has failed to do its job.

    And I must emphasise that I can't wait for the Olympics - it's going to be wonderful - except for that logo.

    I wait to see the mascots with interest - I hope it's an improvement and something that everyone can buy into!

  • Comment number 60.

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

  • Comment number 61.

    Perhaps they could throw the design over to the Turner Prize shortlist... Oh God... perhaps they have!

  • Comment number 62.

    Worst. Logo. Ever.

    Should have stuck with the Thames design.

    Tragic that they're too proud to reverse this mistake.

  • Comment number 63.

    It's just a logo. If you don't like it, don't buy a branded teacup or whatever. Equally, if you don't like the mascots, don't buy a cuddly toy. The purpose of the games is to inject some sporting enthusiasm and the games themselves, as well as the legacy for east London and the rest of the UK, are whats important, not the branding.

  • Comment number 64.

    I think the Mascots are great. Excellent names and pertinent to the games, Good that we have moved from the redundant cuddly toy. I think they really embrace the spirit of the Games and Olympic movement....Well Done to all the team

  • Comment number 65.

    I cannot believe how so many people on here are getting so worked up over a logo...get aggitated about racists, arrogance, murderers, etc...seriously, get real..!!
    I'm not a massive fan of the logo, but one thing you cannot argue with, it is instantly recognisable as the 2012 logo, which is exactly it's purpose...
    Just seen the mascots on the One Show and thought they were great - modern, different from the norm, relevant names and something both kids and adults can identify with and very marketable...

    I'm really looking forward to 2012...and even if i hated the logo and mascots as much as i hate Hitler, it would never deminishe my excitment for the London games... :o)

  • Comment number 66.

    The logo amounts to an international humiliation and the mascots beggar belief. We're going to end up paying billions that we can't afford to trash our design industy. Lamentable.

  • Comment number 67.

    Unfortunately it looks like a friendly lion on the right trying to 'service' a monk on the left...

  • Comment number 68.

    The mascots are just GoGos. Even my 6 year old walked in and said, 'Gogos!' Such a shame that the mascot had to be coppies of a child's toy. We have a blue shiny Gogo that looks identical to the mascot. Try to be a bit more original.

  • Comment number 69.

    Actually - it is all about having an open mind. Sure it wasn't a run of the mill logo, but it I think it looks really good when used by corporate sponsors in all its different colour ways. It is modern and flexible.

  • Comment number 70.

    Every time I look at that logo, especially the yellow version, I just see Lisa Simpson putting the shot!

  • Comment number 71.

    My eyes! The goggles do nothing!

  • Comment number 72.

    I love the mascots and I am sure my grandchildren will too. Wenlock and Mandeville are fun and very modern. Congratulations to the designer and to the team which chose these two quirky characters.

  • Comment number 73.

    The mascots are CCTV cameras- how fitting.

    More Olympic design cobblers!! I'm sure Seb's delighted with himself- he usually is.

  • Comment number 74.

    Did Matt Groening have anything to do with this? The Cyclops, where have I eyed that before....

  • Comment number 75.

    As usual we the tax payer are saddled paying for a load of codswallop.

    The lunacy that the Organising committee think they can get away with is absurd. The public will be just as hostile to these cycloptic gunges that have jumped out of Noels gunge tank as they rightly should be.

    The original logo design was hated by the public and not paid for by red Ken, I wait to see how fast this thing goes downhill, I suspect the trapdoor to the bottomless pit is already open.

  • Comment number 76.

    The big eye represents Big Brother i.e. how our country has become a police state, with cameras dotted everywhere and spying on each other... the spikes for hands represent the gradual suppression of our freedoms i.e. not being able to protest where we want, and only if we hand in a notice beforehand to see if the authorities don't mind... and the signs on top represent the taxis- because they're a completely British concept, and no way will you see a taxi with a sign on top in any other country in the world.

    Made from drops of metal. Amazing.

  • Comment number 77.

    ...and we have to remember how very little anyone involved with the Olympics (yes Seb!, this means YOU!) really cares about real Londoners who will pay the price for the pointless chaos the Games will cause for many years.

    Just look look at the wholesale destruction of the archaeology and wildlife habitat within Greenwich Park which will be caused by the Games- two weeks of horse riding and some nice telly pics. I guess the wrecking of the park won't be headlined.

    How many other countries would trash a 500 year-old historically critical city park for a a couple of weeks telly coverage? Utter madness- that's our Seb!!

  • Comment number 78.

    Well, I am not sure what kids think about it, But as an adult, Wenlock strangely reminds me a pregnancy test you can buy at Boots.

  • Comment number 79.

    These mascots just like the logo are RATHER DREADFUL. Once again the British Olympic Organisers have NOT listened to the people they claim to represent. It was very clear from day one, that they operate entirely in a world of their own and totally chose to ignore the opinions of the majority of people in the UK. Sorry Lord Coe we disagree with you. The mascots are of poor taste.

  • Comment number 80.

    I guess someone somewhere must like the mascots, but judging by this blog no-one who reads the blog does. I agree with most of the posts that they are dreadful and just wish I could get paid that sort of money for coming up with junk (even polished junk).

  • Comment number 81.

    Well, what a surprise... First the logo blatantly says Zion, then the mascot has One All Seeing Eye. Conspiracy theorists must be drooling over that one and who can blame them. Surely the powers that be are either winding them up with such blatant occult symbolism, or the conspiracies aren't far from the truth, but how much more "in your face" can you get? The fact that someone was paid (a lot) to make a design and not just picked from a public submission adds fuel to the fire too.

  • Comment number 82.

    I quite like them but has Mandeville wet his trousers?

  • Comment number 83.

    I really like them - after seeing them I thought "Hmmmmm what have they done now...?" But having seen the video and gone with a bit of an open mind I want the ornaments as soon as they come out! They're adorable and fun, they're different, and represents the modern way of life - not something all you old people can appreciate!

  • Comment number 84.

    The Olympics are going to be an embarrassment anyway. London has an outdated and unreliable transport system that fails to get people to and from work on time. How it is going to transport all these people to the Games is beyond me.

  • Comment number 85.

    They should have made it some sort of Blue Peter competition. A 5 year old could come up with a better mascot than those!

    I agree with whoever said Leon the Lion. How do two slabs of steel represent England in any way, shape or form??

  • Comment number 86.

    Mascots are fine.

    The logo still looks like Lisa Simpson...and friend.

  • Comment number 87.

    Gotta catch em all, 2012 mascots!

  • Comment number 88.

    They are both modeled on CCTV cameras and reflect the fact that wherever you go in London, you're being watched.

  • Comment number 89.

    so funny that people leaving comments are in such a hurry to scroll down and complain that most haven't even seen the mascots in the artice! comments like "i hate the logo and i'm sure i'll hate the mascots when they unveil them!" some people have even complained about the article being about the mascots and the BBC not even shwoing them. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE MASCOTS IN THE THIRD IMAGE DOWN ARE!!!!!

  • Comment number 90.

    Well, I like them. Modern, fresh, I think many kids will think they are cool.

    And frankly I get a little tired of people who don't like them banging on about "the organisers are not listening to the British people" and such like comments. You have an opinion, and you're equally as entitled to it as the rest of us. But please don't presume to speak for me or "the majority of the public"; you have no more idea than the rest of us what the majority think.

    (For what it's worth, I did think the logo was rubbish so I'm not a serial supporter of everything the organisers do)

  • Comment number 91.

    They look like the sort of thing kids like. Shiny and weird. I hope they and the games are a great success. Cheer up everyone. It might be fun.

  • Comment number 92.

    I'm getting incredibly frustrated with the general public now, going on about "spending our money" for this and "spending our money" for that...

    Do people think that the taxpayer is paying for the olympics and that the economy will not receive any uplift whatsoever??? We might be spending billions of pounds but we're going to receive billions of extra pounds into our economy as well as benefit from the remains of the games (better stadia, better facilities for our athletes / general public to use).

    On the same note, do you think we have mascots for no reason and we just waste £400k on them? No, they become a major merchandising tool for the games and I can assure you that the profit from merchandise baring the mascots and the olympic symbol will drawf their original cost.

  • Comment number 93.

    i actually really like the mascots. not particularly the graphic versions, but the costume things are really sweet. got really jokes dumpling legs too! at least we dont have the loutish british bulldog or something crude like that.
    agree that it should have been a community project though, the point of mascots is to involve the young'uns so why not let them get involved in the production too?
    logo isn't incredible, and probably won't be timeless, but is it really that big a deal? i think it's quite amusing looking back at the ridiculously retro designs from the past. i reckon 2012 logo will give the same pleasure in the future.

  • Comment number 94.

    Never did like the 2012 logo. Looked a little crude, too abstract and hard to read initially. The design for the candidate city with the Olympic colours forming the Thames and threading through the words London and 2012 was simple and elegant and summed up what London is about.

    As for the mascots, again, a bit ugly looking, and I feel that a committee has really just come up with something to show that they're totally down with the kids of today. Doesn't really appeal to the general public at large. I think kids will love them though. Adults just won't care but it should be a money-spinner and if it gets more kids involved in sport, then great.

  • Comment number 95.

    Why are people so negative. Children will absolutely love them! watch cbeebies for 5 minutes or talk to my little girl and then perhaps you will get it! Mascots are aimed at children not middle aged men who like a moan!

    Well done people- great job and ignore the mindless fools who just knock everything.

  • Comment number 96.

    Sorry, bit in my opinion, they are awful. They are awful to look at and they have stupid names. How much have the Organising Committee wasted on these hideous creations? I am not decrying the heritage of either Much Wenlock or the fantastic work done at Stoke Mandeville but these names are just many people would know the relatively obscure reasons for the names?

    Couldn't they have gone for something along the lines of a British Lion in a Yeoman Warder (Beefeater) uniform? Or a Pearly King or Queen?

    These two look as cuddly as an iron bar! I won't be buying anything with these stupid creatures or the daft 2012 logo on it!

  • Comment number 97.

    All you objectioners are critically failing to remember this is a games for the children. The kids love the mascot (unless you tell them otherwise), that's all that matters.

    The designs of both the logo and mascot have energy and character. They may not be elegant enough for many tastes, but modern day UK is neither elegant nor simple.

    The logo and mascot SUITS the country.

  • Comment number 98.

    What i love is that, a group of well paid designers and judges have sat round a table, making love to their own faces and approved something that they think is in touch with the people, because obviously we're all obsessed with one eyed alien looking creatures, nothing says London like them. Besides this, these ludicrous mascots have somehow come to the fore probably by someone high up in things who is so out of touch and bizarrely really likes them, and everyone else is too scared to tell them that they're rubbish. Like hazardous_waster said, Lenny the Lion and have done with it, and take your 100k for a job adequately done.

  • Comment number 99.

    It's a stainless steel soap bar that's gone wrong. Isn't it???

  • Comment number 100.

    #92, jaydrawmer:

    "Do people think that the taxpayer is paying for the olympics and that the economy will not receive any uplift whatsoever???"

    I've got news for you. The taxpayer is paying for the olympics.

    Sure, the economy will receive some uplift. Just nowhere near £9bn worth. Just ask Sydney, or Athens.


Page 1 of 2

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.