We had our first peek at the Olympic logo today. First impressions don't seem to feel it was worth all the money, and effort, expended.
LONDON 2012 REBRAND. OH DEAR.
No, don't hold back... say what you think.
Nice to see the money diverted from the arts to cover all sorts of derrieres is still be used wisely.
I wonder how many times they had to send it back and forth to get it 5 x over budget.
New:
Sorry, I am addicted to this...
To be fair....
Having been part of the process more than once, I feel a tad (but £400k buys a lot of pain relief) sorry for the actual designers who will get fingered by the tabloids.
There will have been a brief, and there will have been a presentation. And I am prepared to bet there will have been mid-level numpties in the client marketing side who dicked about trying to put their stamp on it and justify their 30k non-jobs.
But, WO-is-you, you can always walk away.
What's the name of the mythical director on movies no one wants to own up to?
Guardian - London's new brand of bother
Cif - Go Logo
Logo design - .007p (actually, that's what they owe each of us)
The most up its own derriere marketing-speek explanation/justification from the creators - £400,000
The saddest piece of quango self-immolation in history by every sad sod involved, but especially the senior guys in the committee and government - Priceless!
Houston, we have a camel.
Let the blame games begin!
Telegraph - A new Olympic record?
This typifies the state of government today.
They farm out everything (my daily exasperation is the environment, with billions being p*ssed away hourly to zero effect) to equally inept, but vastly overpaid third parties who it seems, can be blamed but not held accountable.
Meanwhile nothing actually gets done that's worth a damn, but there's a lot of money sunk into looking like it's getting done, which is all that matters in our target, hype and spin-obsessed political and business cultures. With the a*se-cover the main point of any initiative.
The tragic part is... even what they try and look like they are doing is so woeful. But at least the derriere protection systems always seem golden.
Will one single person, or committee (I presume this numpty effort was briefed and approved by some worthy set of individuals on fat salaries) responsible for this farce pay any price? Our reputation as... well... good at anything really, from organising a p*ss-up to designing world-class creative ideas, is already well and truly shot.
Pathetic.
Telegraph - 'Green' Olympics are a joke
And now they have produced a logo to match the rest of it.
Over priced. Over hyped. Over budget. Over here.
And nothing like what they are trying to bully us into accepting they say it is.
I'd laugh with you, but my face is still in a rictus of horror.
Over and out.
BBC - What it could have been. Sigh.
Creative Match
Indy - No-go logos: The story of unpopular branding
Times - Olympic logo firm chosen ‘blind'
UPDATED - BBC - 2012 Olympics budget 'on track' - Just in a different ballpark?
Junkk.com promotes fun, reward-based e-practices, sharing oodles of info in objective, balanced ways. But we do have personal opinions, too! Hence this slightly ‘off of site, top of mind' blog by Junkk Male Peter. Hopefully still more ‘concerned mates’ than 'do this... or else' nannies, with critiques seen as constructive or of a more eyebrow-twitching ‘Oh, really?!' variety. Little that’s green can be viewed only in black and white.
Monday, December 10, 2007
2 comments:
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.
Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.
I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.
I still think the new 2012 olympics logo looks like a heap of lego bricks sitting on a squashed swastika. I cannot think of a single thing that such symbolism might be trying to tell us.
ReplyDeleteAs for the £400K cost, they should have let the younger Blue Peter viewers enter a competition to design it - they would probably have had half a dozen or more much more suitable and identifiable entries almost for free.
It is symptomatic of all that is wrong in our politico/corporate culture today.
ReplyDeleteThe £400k is claimed to not be from taxpayers pockets, but just how many associated staff and consultants were/are involved/paid in this minor process alone, such that a dire result was achieved, took an eternity to get to get to, and even when 'delivered' didn't meet its aims? Oh, and with no refunds or accountability anywhere.
This country's ever-reducing, tanagible, productive workforce simply cannot be expected to, much less practically sustain such vast parasitic calls on the public purse to fund these idiotic and poorly managed wastes of money and time.
Who will bear the brunt of yet another fiscal farce? You can bet no one on fat quango salaries or those in power who have installed them to run interference.