Why did the 2012 logo cause so much debate - and so much of it hostile? Apart from the obvious answer here in the UK, i.e. it was featured heavily on the BBC news, I think it's because of the increasing obsession with logos and their appeal (or not) to people.
As marketers we should all be aware that the logo is NOT the brand nor even a shorthand visual representation of it, but for the mass audience sometimes this becomes a fact that is increasingly hard to see.
The truth is of course that the logo means nothing without brand values associated to it by the target audience. This post by Seth Godin as usual is right on the money.
Comments (3)
i guess that for most people, a logo is the embodiment of a brand. the vast majority of the population know what 'brand values' are when expressed like that.
as far as 2012 goes, the logo is pretty much the first thing the public has seen regarding the olympics since london secured it. i'm not sure what values london will be looking to attach to the event?
maybe the logo will be something that grows on people? after all, brits do like to moan.
m
Posted by Matt O'Neill | June 12, 2007 5:20 PM
Posted on June 12, 2007 17:20
Matt - spot on about the moaning! I think the problem I have with the logo and the way that Seb Coe amongst others is talking about brands, is putting the cart before the horse, it's premature to talk about what the games may hold.
Having said all that can anyone remember any logo from previous games?
Posted by wesley Hackett | June 12, 2007 6:13 PM
Posted on June 12, 2007 18:13
oops.. i meant to say ' the vast majority of the population don't know what 'brand values' are.
a few words made a big difference to my meaning.
m
Posted by Matt O'Neill | June 13, 2007 10:01 AM
Posted on June 13, 2007 10:01