The London 2012 logo

So much feedback on the new London 2012 logo has been published in news articles, posted on websites and ranted about in blogs that we may be growing tired of talking about it. I initially resisted the desire to blog about this raging conversation as my own feelings were mostly covered by some of the many less-than-thrilled reactions to the new logo.

But then I continue to see the 2012 logo in all its monstrosity. And I can no longer keep hold of my public tongue. Every time I see that logo, I have the same reaction: what were they thinking? Striking? Yes, but so is a slap in the face. Memorable? Only in that it has caused such an up-roar, as has Guantanamo Bay. (By the way, I am drawing too many comparisons between the 2012 logo and Guantanamo Bay … simply that both have caused an uproar in some corners of the world. This isn’t a political blog.)

The real short-coming of the logo is its failure to account for those not in the ‘youth of tomorrow’ category. The leaders of the Olympic committee have stressed that it was all about inclusion, but if the logo is geared for the London street culture, doesn’t that necessarily mean that a large portion of others are left out?

Making a logo for the Olympics is not an easy task – make no mistake about that. With so many different stakeholders involved in the process and with so much of the public taking a keen interest in the event, it is an impossible task to create a logo that works for everyone. But what the Olympic committee should be doing now – rather than taking a government-esque response of “that’s the logo; now learn to love it” stance – is adopting a forward-thinking business approach to the backlash against the logo and trying to put a positive spin on it. Maybe even admitting they got it wrong, or could have gotten it more right. At very least, the Committee should acknowledge the role of the public (their customers!) in deciding how the corporate side of the Olympics is presented.