Branding the Olympics—“worst practices” in design

While the Olympic games themselves are steeped in excellence and “best practices” in athletics—the design of the 2020 Olympic logo has spiraled into an example “worst practices” in graphic design.This past September the 2020 Tokyo Olympic logo that was designed by Kenjiro Sano was scrapped when he was accused of design plagiarism. Sano’s design has characteristics of a logo designed by Belgian designer Olivier Debie for the Theatre de Liege.Initially, organizers defended Sano, but then changed their minds, asserting that using a logo that is not supported by the public is not in their best interests and the success of the Olympics. Instead, they decided to crowdsource the logo design, opening it up to anyone. The organizers received nearly 15,000 entries from people competing for $8,250 and tickets to the opening ceremonies.This week AIGA firmly stated their position with an open letter to the Tokyo Olympic committee. Executive Director Ric Grefé discussed several reasons why crowdsourcing logos is damaging to designers, the highlights follow:

• Crowdsourcing takes advantage of designers, asking them to work countless hours without a guarantee of any compensation. Furthermore, the amount of the proposed award, is much lower than what the appropriate compensation would be for a brand identity that will have global value, being reproduced millions of times.
• By opening the contest to the general public, the committee demonstrates a complete lack of respect for trained and experienced professionals.
• The valuable collaboration with the client when creating a brand identity is completely ignored with crowdsourcing , compromising the ethics and global standards for professional designers.

U.S. designer Michael Raisch’s response to the controversy echoes AIGA’s stance. With over a decade of experience in sports branding, Raisch thinks that crowdsourcing brand identity devalues creative professional careers and thei contributions to the world. He decided to point to the absurdity of the committee’s decision to crowdsource the logo by opening the contest up to three-year-olds, emphasizing the point that crowdsourcing results in amateur work. Raisch created an endearing video about the experience entitled, “A 3 Year Old Explains the Olympic Logo.”The contest just closed this past week—stay tuned for the results—no doubt more controversy is in store.http://eyeondesign.aiga.org/against-crowdsourcing-logo-design-an-open-letter-from-aiga-to-the-tokyo-olympic-committee/http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/02/sport/tokyo-olympic-logo-scrapped/index.htmlhttp://www.designweek.co.uk/a-three-year-old-could-have-designed-that-the-olympic-logo-made-by-a-toddler/

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