The London 2012 Logo Debate

It is a week to feel really sorry for Wolff Olins, one of the countries other branding specialists. We are all used to having logos rejected because a client doesn't like the font or the colour, but this week the country en mass have turned into branding experts and have decided that the new logo for the London 2012 Olympics is well frankly, rubbish.

It appears to have got so bad for them that they have taken down their funky website with a big blinking eye and a detailed rationale of the logo and replaced it with their old site with no mention of London 2012 to be found.

This is a shame, because at InHouse we like it. Admittedly the creative department would have done it differently, but then which self-respecting graphic designer wouldn't say that. No, most of us like it.

Brands are like great pop records, you don't always like them at first but then gradually they sneak up on you until they become an essential part of your life.

London 2012 is also showing that there is a difference between a brand and a logo. The logo is only one part of the brand. If you explore the 2012 site, you can see films that combine aspiration, determination and humour. You will also find images of the new logo cut into a playing field. Three days in and the brand is already evolving from the day-glo logo plastered over the country's media. Over the coming months expect to see it in a variety of different situations, each time diluting the shock of its first viewing. By the time that David Beckham has it shaved onto the back of his head, or an aspiring swimmer has it tattooed on their arm we will have forgotten what the fuss was about.

The logo is unarguably distinctive; and whilst many commentators have said that it looks as though it was designed by committee, our experience suggests the opposite. It is certainly not the usual Olympic/World Cup easy option logo where a few swirls represent a football or a couple of local landmarks. This is out on its own. It is worth suggesting that inverse snobbery is playing a large part. If the logo was for an Olympics in Tokyo, it would be heralded as visionary and everyone would be complaining that we would never have the confidence to have it in this country. Unfortunately, in a quiet news week and the trend for comment-led radio and television, it is this week's big issue and people like nothing more than a good moan.

So, by next week we will have forgotten about it and Wolff Olins will have reverted to their new site. But most importantly we will have started thinking about the Olympics and ultimately that is what the brand is for.