Oh No I didn't...RE: The London Olympics 2012 Logo

Dedicated to Timi Arnott, 
RE: London 2012 Olympics Logo.

Part 1: These are 4 of the previous Olympic Brand Logos for the various countries that held them.


They each have some kind of cultural significance pertaining to the host country's 'brand equity' in terms of colour, symbols and design.

This has long been the case throughout Olympic history. For more information on the past logos, please refer to the following link:

Dedicated to Timi Arnott, RE: London 2012 Olympics Logo.

Part 2: The attached picture depicts the London Olympics 2012 Logo.

The logo was intentionally designed and chosen aimed at youths. It was meant to display energy, vibrance and create interest.

There has been much debate about the use of this logo. Some state that it is an insult and is not a real representation of English Culture.

The colours come in Pink/Orange/Green/Blue and is meant to reflect on the diversity that London carries.

My Thoughts:

The Olympics is the subject matter. The athletes and sports they play in play a vital part in it. These host cities and branding are just mediums/platforms to showcase this prestigious event.

The Olympics is about unity. It's about sportsmanship, friendship, competition and the platform to represent your country in the elite field. A sense of national pride is assimilated here.

Unfortunately, the commercialisation has led to the bastardization of this event.

Look at the athletes. The brands they wear, the items they carry. They seem to desire to reach an icon status far beyond the olympic platform. To me, it seems as a way for them to continue to be remembered for beyond their short stint at the Olympics. Now with many social media platforms available, people have various ways to stay connected and communicate with their favourite athletes.
Why? More numbers means more numbers in their bank accounts.

The London Olympics 2012 logo was meant to portray entertainment, music, fashion and media. It differs greatly from the previous logos that usually provides some cultural significance in the host country.

Further controversies lie between the use of the font. Some say it looks like a childs handwriting, yet the conceptualization of this 'apparently simple' font took some time. It clearly reads 2012, but we all know semantics can be subjective.

What was London trying to do here? To me, it seems like they were trying to capture the most ROI based on current trends (fashion, arts, media) as compared to retaining heritage and culture. London claims to be the city of innovation. To me, this seems to be more of the case of NORMAL. Any city can have a claim to these industries and trends. Let the city and the people speak for itself.

What does London have that nobody else does, or has a true claim for?

Fish & Chips, Big Ben, The Queen (Iconic), Elton John, The Spice Girls, The River Thames etc...

However, the brand logo does have the ability to build on brand recognition. The intricate shape and colours are iconic in its defence.

Regardless of the issues at stake, the olympics should be what we make of it. We know with branding, people take ownership of the brand, not brands. I'm a firm believer in this. However, if people cannot relate to it, then it is a failure.

Otherwise, let's get back to the real reason of the Olympics; The athletes and sports they compete in.


Daniel Jacob Santhou
The Creative Strategist


Melbourne, Australia


Popular Posts