em
an
ue
le
ca
ten
a
qu ic k bro ws et he fir s t4 0p ag es ...
unit 2.1 - essay london college of communication ma graphic branding and indentity
em
an
ue
doe
le
ca
s ev
ten
a
bo er y
dy
ha t
es
o the
lym
pic
log
unit 2.1 - essay london college of communication ma graphic branding and indentity
o?
DOES EVERYBODY HATE THE OLYMPICS LOGO?
First time visiting London means, for a tourist, a series of “must see places” to conscientiously tour: the Big Ben, Piccadilly Circus, London Eye, Buckingham Palace… Among the iconic places of the Capital that no one tourist can avoid there is, of course, Trafalgar Square. This Piazza, surely is one of the photo opportunity not to slip away: who has never seen the pictures of kids sit above one of the four lions, or climbing the pedestal of the central column? However, starting from March of last year, Admiral Nelson has lost points in the ranking of the most important sites to whom shoot a photo with… And he will probably loose more, at least until the day of closing ceremony for the XXX Olympic modern Games. Since the fourteenth of March 20111, one of the most popular elements whereby take a picture with, to crystallize the particular historical period of the holiday, is the clock that signs the countdown to the opening of the Olympic Games. This gigantic 18 feet tall and 4 tonnes heavy steel monument, has been unveiled 500 days before the Games’ opening ceremony, giving the starting kick for the Olympic celebrations and, most of all, building another important piece for one of the most impressive branding operations of the modern Games.
2
It’s undisputed that Olympics are not just the old fashioned Baron de Coubertin’s 18962 sport ceremonies, but are an important motive force for a Country’s economy and infrastructure. Around these Games spin enormous financial and commercial interests. It is therefore for communication reasons that the London Olympics Committee recognized the need of a unique identity… An identity that could transmit the Olympic experience, that could contain under the same umbrella the various souls and the manifold partners that drives the organisation of an Olympic edition. The task of moulding the Games’ identity was consequently assigned to a strong and experienced agency, “Wolff Olins”3, the same of 2004 Athens Games. The agency, for the amount of four hundred thousand pounds, unveiled in 2007 the most unusual and controversial logo of the last Olympic Games.
AVERSION FOR THE NEW, OR FOUNDED REASONS? It’s positive that innovations can create stupor and sometimes loathing; a classical example regarding the unborn hostility toward the change is recognisable on a new car’s restyling case: usually the first feedbacks on the redesign are lukewarm. They tend to get better eventually, when the new image harden, taking the old one place. 3
Usually, indeed, because the critiques, in this case ferocious at the beginning, didn’t soften with time… In a BBC’s online poll4 published few days after the unveiling of the new Olympic identity, the media asked the readers to evaluate the new London 2012 logo: out of 10188 voters, only 9,5% gave it the golden medal, the 10,3% was divided between the silver and bronze medal, while the resting 79,7% gave at the new Olympic logo the wooden spoon… And the critiques didn’t stop at this time. An online petition5 signed by almost 50,000 people demanded to call for a new logo, or at least to step backward at the old one, a plain “London 2012” text with a five coloured stripes in the middle. The last sever judgement was raised by the Iranian Olympic committee. It recognised on the Olympic symbol the word “Zion”6, and demanded the London Games Committee to use a not filo-Israeli logo, as the chosen one was according to them. The query was unaccepted, of course, but the perplexities and the different interpretations remained… Officially, the logo symbolizes the “2012” numbers, with the word “London” inscribed inside the first “two”, and the five rings inside the last “zero”. But besides the lettering used for the Capital and the famous Olympic circles, it takes a certain amount of imagination to picture the “2012” digits in it; then, why don’t recognise the word “Zion” as a meaning for the symbol, or
Clichè for the olympic medals. Design: David Watkins.
even other allusive images that we won’t report here? I must admit that at the first sight I also had a somewhat warm impression of this odd “2012”. It didn’t symbolise the city, it was too coloured, too edgy… But, as the first visiting tourist in t\whe English Capital, I’ve been struck by the view of the big steel clock. It’s because of this vision that I wanted to analyse the potentiality of this logo. THE PURPOSES The Wolff Olins agency stated the intentions that brought them to the design of the current logo were to create something “that could inspire and engage with a global audience of four billion people.”3 They emphasized the creation of a symbol that for the first time in history could share the same language for the Olympics and the Paralympics. The President of the London Games committee (LOCOG), Sebastian Coeb, vigorously embraced the agency’s purpose. In a BBC interview he specified: “It (the logo) will define the venues we build and the Games we hold and act as a reminder of our promise to use the Olympic spirit to inspire 5
everyone and reach out to young people around the world.” Again in another interview: “It’s not a logo, it’s a brand that will take us forward for the next five years”.4,7 Both of them also underlined one of the major innovations of the brand were in the colouring: the logo introduces the possibility of using different colours as a bridge between the sponsors’ different identities. Other key roles of the symbol were its compactness and, most of all, the distinction with the past Olympic editions, all of them defined by supple athletes’ figures or by smooth and curvy shapes. At least, is different! I asked several designers their opinion about this concept: the answers have always been the same: “at least is different”8… Interesting Answer… It doesn’t state a personal opinion, but shifts the analysis on the differentiation: is it therefore the “distinction” the concept to aim at? The Olympics are in itself a particular event: they happen every four years, thus the expectations are always enormous; but it is known that from great expectations can come big disappointments.
Some editions become memorable for events that occurs before, during or even after the event2: • in 1968 two American athletes, Tommi Smith and John Carlos, decided to show the Black Power black glove during their prizegiving ceremony: • in 1972 in Munich, the Israeli team was segregated and slaughtered by the terrorist group called “Black Semptember”; • again in 1980, during the cold war, the American team boycotted the Moscow Games, and the soviet team did the same for the 1984’s Los Angeles Games; • in 2004, The Greek government couldn’t respect the expected budget, creating a long lasting deficit and building facilities used just for the Games.9
two billboards on the tube. The Olympic logo is vibible and connected with the sponsors’ logo.
There are other editions that simply doesn’t scar. Thus something is needed, the mysterious “iskra”, the sparkle, that helps the public to impress that particular edition into the memory. There the designer assumes a superior function. The 1968 Mexico City Games or the 1972 Munich Games would have been famous even without the political episodes mentioned 6
Logos from the past editions: 1960, Rome 1964, Tokio 1968, Mexico City 1972, Munich
Con stru ctio n of the Lon don 2012 Oly mp ic Log o. Wo lff Olin s
before; they would have been famous for their logo. The 68 Lance Wyman’s design10,11 was a plain written text composed by three curvy lines and the Olympic rings between the “C” and the “O”. The German symbol, as analysed in a 2007 creative review article12, was even more iconic: “A lot of the criticisms levelled at the London logo could also apply to the 72 logo. It too broke free of the cliches. The Munich logo didn’t symbolise the host city, it said nothing about sport. But it was beautiful, elegant and sublime. The London logo is none of these. Aicher showed that you can challenge convention and create beauty at the same time.” Maybe even the Mexican editions were addressed by great critiques: that identity was simply groundbreaking if compared with the rising sun of Tokio 1964, or the Rome’s “Lupa capitolina” for the 1960 Games. But, above all, times were different. The branding and the identity concepts were still unclear, and internet was still far to be invented. It was simply impossible to spread the opinions of people from all around the world. At least is different; there’s the urge to create a gap between the 7
old and the new trends, without even thinking if the logo is ugly or is good! The branding for these Games was expensive, indeed, but it reached the aim of being noticed and talked about. It reminds me another example of this kind of philosophy: during the eighties the former Benetton’s Art Director, Oliviero Toscani, caused an uproar with shocking campaigns not directly related with the brand’s product13,14; these eventually increased the sales and, most of all, increased the brand’s awareness all around the world. But there are substantial differences: Oliviero Toscani’s work could have been bad or good, could have been found agreeable or not, but it was the market the judge of that kind of campaigns. This is not the case for the London 2012 logo. The Olympics, we talked it before, are a particular event that happens only every four years. The Games are prepared by the international Olympic committee years before the event15,16 (for the 2012 editions the first bids started in 2003); the athletes train day and night just to be able to participate at one edition. It is natural, therefore, that the affections of the
media and of the public are already pointed on this occurrence. How can the market evaluate the goodness of one brand, when the event in itself it’s already authoritative? It’s obviously impossible, at least not only talking about sales and profits. I don’t imagine it’s possible to think merely at the economical reviews, at least for this concept; yes, the tickets have to be sold, and yes, the City has to gain profit from this event. But the spectators will participate anyway, with or without this symbol. I believe though, that in order to really evaluate the logo, it’s important to come back to the broader idea of “brand”. A brand as a container, as an umbrella for the countless different faces of the event, and, most of all, a strong help to keep the promise of the expectations. Almost five years after the unveiling of our extra coloured and squared symbol and one year after the installation of the Trafalgar Square’s clock, it’s possible to define the results of the branding operation. Does the brand work? Has it enough visibility? Did it maintain the promise? 8
It’s important to remark the words that Wolff Olins and the LOCOG used for the launch: the slogan “brand” was more emphasized than the pure name “logo”. They focused the attention on the concept of “promise”12,17. They displayed the concept of a brand that would have had to be new at least for five years. Nowadays, thanks to the farsighted idea of matching the sponsors’ colours inside the symbol, it appears on several billboards and institutional advs; on the tube, in the buses and on the street. This surely increases the Event’s visibility. On the other hand, Londoners still not particularly appreciates the Olympic logo. “It could have been made my grandmother” is one of the several comments on the blogosphere; they say so, but they do recognise it… And the tourists love to take pictures with Omega’s big steel clock. The sponsors are the ones that seem to appreciate it most. Surfing on the partners’ websites
9
it’s possible to find the logo connected with their own company ones18. Just few names: UPS, Coca Cola, Mac Donald’s, Panasonic, Omega, Procter & Gamble, Visa, Adidas, BP, British Airways, BMW, BT, LLoyds, they all use the Olympic Games brand. A small portion of other sponsors prefers to use the five rings symbol: Acer, General Electric, Dow and Coca Cola (on its cans) among those. The debate born around this identity has had also another merit: it created a strong movement between designers and politicians around the importance of having a unique “face” for the Capital19. Following the example of Amsterdam, but driven by the Olympic experience, more voices are claiming something recognisable that could overcome the actual “diaspora” of brands: “Mayor of London”, “London Film”, “Transport for London”. The project is not completed, but the new seed has been planted.
It’s not possible to evaluate this experiment with a mere esthetical judgment. Whereas the assessment has to be made on the outcome of a project that has to crystalize the image of the Olympics on the “XXX summer Olympics games, London 2012”: “It could have been made my grandmother”20; maybe, but she didn’t. And, most of all, she didn’t enacted. The Olympic five rings are there, naturally, but those are the superstructure of the entire event. These are the importance, the authority of an event that happens only every four years. Something that is different respect the event as itself. The embryonic aim, the promise, like-it or not, has been accomplished through this logo. And it’s not important if the logo it’s too squared, too coloured, too eighties… Because this is not too, it’s enough. And this is ample.
Some examples of branding application: on the buses, the London 2012 shop in the airport, on the bus platform, sainsbury’s and visa.
1 0
REFERENCES 1
Clock starts counting down as tickets go on sale. BBC News , 14/03/12 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ uk-12733676
2
www.olympic.org http://www.olympic.org/ athens-1896-summer-olympics
3
Wolff Olins www.wolffolins.com
4
London unveils logo of 2012 Games. BBC News, 4/06/07 http://news.bbc.co.uk/ sport1/hi/other_sports/ olympics_2012/6718243.stm
5
6
7
Online Petition http://www.gopetition.co.uk/ petitions/change-the-london2012-logo.html Iran claims London 2012 Olympics logo spells the word ‘Zion’. Borger, J. The Guardian, 28/02/11
London Olympic logo row goes global. Grande, C. Financial Times, 7/06/07
1 1
8
Design choice: London 2012 logo. Knapp, P. Marketing, 6/13/07
9
Default. Giacona, R. Procicchianti, R. Rai Tre, Presa Diretta 18/03/2012 http://www.presadiretta. rai.it/dl/portali/site/puntata/ ContentItem-ab0d6e2e-cb434c8b-97dc-b551b5877064. html?homepage
10 Beyond Tlatelolco: Design, Media and Politics at Mexico ‘68. Castañeda, L. M. Grey Room n°40, Summer ‘10 Pag. 101-126 11 Lance Wyman website http://www.lancewyman.com 12 Pro or con? Sinclair, M. Creative Review, 02/07/07 Pag. 38, 2012; 13 Why I revere the shocking genius of advertising; Oliviero Toscani’s copulating horses, kissing nuns and declining aids patients would never have passed the focus groups’ Bayley, S. The Indipendent, 3/05/2000 Pag. 5
14 Toscani and his critics Rich, Tim. Print 52.2, 03-04/98 pag. 174-177. 15 Olympic Charter. International Olympic Committee, 07/2011 edition, chapter five, rule 33 16 London wins 2012 Olympics CNN website 07/07/2005 http://web.archive.org/ web/20070217154221/ http://www.cnn.com/2005/ SPORT/07/06/singapore. olympics/index.html 17 Voxpop: 2012 branding Design Week 22. 24 14/06/07: Pag 11. 18 LOCOG Website http://www.london2012.com/ about-us/the-people-deliveringthe-games/london-2012olympic-games-partners.php 19 A brand for London http://abrandforlondon. wordpress.com/ 20 London, How do I Hate Thee? Let me Count the Ways: 1, 2‌ 2012 http://www.underconsideration. com/speakup/archives/003489.html
All the pictures in this booklet were taken by Emanuele Catena. Designers of the olympic logos at page 6: 1960: Unofficial; the designer for the olympic poster was Armando Testa. 1964: Yusaku Kamekura 1968: Lance Wyman 1972: Otl Aicher.
1 2