Brand (un)control
The London 2012 Olympic logo has been discussed (and criticized) ever since it was unveiled in 2007. With the start of the Olympics only two weeks away, it seemed like a good time to take another look.Branding has always been one of my favorite areas of graphic design. As a graphic designer, I find it to be one of the most challenging areas; as an educator, one of the most interesting. The social implications of branding are often more interesting than the logos themselves. Then of course there is the question of what is "good" branding. Should it be considered a success if it's designed well, made an impact and created brand awareness, or for what it stands for?Before the age of social media the brand experience was carefully crafted and planned. Steven Heller's book, Iron Fists: Branding the 20th Century Totalitarian State, offers a fascinating comparison of corporate branding strategies—slogans, mascots, jingles and the rest—to those adopted by four of the most destructive 20th‐century totalitarian regimes: Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, and Mao’s China.Fast forward to the 21st Century and the age of social media. A brand identity is no longer tightly controlled from the top down. As soon as it's introduced it's open to feedback from anywhere; control has reversed—it's now from the bottom up.When Wolff Olins was asked by London's Organizing committee to design a logo for the 2012 Olympics they were asked to "inspire a generation." The brand promise was to put the Olympic and Paralympic Games at the heart of contemporary life. With this goal in mind, many would say they've been successful. The logo has inspired a multitude of criticism, parody, and even paranoia. Iran's National Olympic Committee threatened to boycott the Olympics because they said the logo was racist because some believed they could see the word "Zion" in the abstract design. IOC President Jacques Rogge dismissed the criticism. The one thing that everyone would agree on is that since its release in 2007 the logo has been a hotbed of controversy. It's been deconstructed and reconfigured to suggest everything from a swastika to Lisa and Bart Simpson having sex.What do you think? Is the logo "good," and how important has social media been in building the brand?Sources:http://www.davidairey.com/london-2012-olympic-logo-disaster/http://imprint.printmag.com/uncategorized/the-eye-of-the-beholders/http://imprint.printmag.com/branding/spoof-protest-and-conspiracy-london-2012-anti-logos/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=spoof-protest-and-conspiracy-london-2012-anti-logos&et_mid=566392&rid=23821332http://www.wolffolins.com/work/london-2012http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympic_games/9410046.stmhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/arts/31iht-IDLEDE2.1.14885119.html?_r=3http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/critics-slam-london-olympic-logo-193526099--oly.html