Paul Bailey, partner at 1977 Design, was another who was receptive to the branding’s potential when it launched, ‘I would be lying if I said that I was a huge fan of the logo in itself, but I did think that the approach had a certain energy and potential, and so was willing to give it time to develop. His main gripe has been with the brand application since it launched, ‘It’s an identity that promises diversity and yet it’s been used like a stamp since it launched.’ Couch points to Matt Pyke of Universal Everything’s Adidas Olympics animation as an ‘integrated’ exception to this. ![]() Nick Couch, managing director at Figtree, describes the identity as ‘Bright, energetic and slightly dysfunctional… It reflects London.’ So now we’ve had five years to digest the Olympics identity, what do people think of it now? The aim, according to Locog, is to create a brand environment that ‘extends across every aspect of the Games, from spectator arrival into Heathrow all the way through to the colours and designs of the seats in the venues.’ Olympics branding on Oxford Street Since Wolff Olins developed the identity, it has been handed over to Futurebrand and Locog, who have been beavering away at the brand applications – from tickets to shops to Olympic venues. It was very difficult to imagine, in 2007, how this might work. ![]() The second was that the real purpose of the identity wasn’t as a standalone logo, but as a brand that had to come to life in the run-up to, and during, the Games. ![]() Much of the original criticism of the logo came down to two issues – the first was that Wolff Olins, which designed the mark, was unable to fully discuss its design rationale, due to media restrictions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |