I don't design the 2012 Mascot

London 2012 Olympic mascot: Calling all entries

Dear Sir,

I hadn't realised, by virtue of not reading 'the brief' until now (the point pre-deadline I'd logged in my PC), that this was a search for an agency.

And much as a showcase in the Guardian is attractive, exposing one's brainpower to a potentially profitable property without being more certain of the rewards is unattractive.

Not likely to be a problem bearing in mind the entity involved in the real deal is a committee of worthies from an 'interestingly relevant' set of backgrounds, who don't do bland and yet came up with the whatever it is.

Hence, and rather than submit any doodles, may I instead make a suggestion?

Whatever this 'thing' is, in light of the eco-stance that will form a major part of the games, and the likely frugal, waste-sparing nature of most visitors during this period, rather than piece of useless tat Made in China that serves no function, the brief requires that in addition to being all a mascot needs to be, it is designed to do more than sit on a desk or ending up in a drawer.

Now, having set such a brief, and knowing all the potential manifestations it will need to satisfy in 2 & 3D, in the time left I can't imagine how to fulfill it.

Sorry.

But I would suggest a good start is a hole. You can use it to hang onto things, or things from.

Let the designs begin!

Rgds,

Pledge, target... what exactly are they for?

Its green medal hopes are lost but Beijing must race on - Failure to meet the Olympic cleanup pledge will embarrass China.

I wish I could run my business as most governments (are alloweed to) run theirs.

"So... what I said wee'd do to get the job hasn't happened. Oh, and it's tripled in price, ta very much'.

You are here

I like maps

The Pollution Map of Beijing

I think we need one of these for everywhere.

You know where you are... and who has put you in the position you are in... there.

Olympics costs - to infinity and beyond!

Back in February, the DCMS admitted that the cost of staging the London Olympics 'could' (yes, that horrid little word again) quadruple to the staggering sum of some £9 Billion.

We mentioned on this very blog the lack of accountability and the astounding cost estimate spiral for the Olympics swimming pool complex which had been awarded to a sole bidder.

And earlier this morning I heard Tessa Jowell on Radio 5 attempting to defend the fact that the overall estimate has now reached £9.3 Billion! Not that she actually answered any of the questions directly, it was an absolute masterclass in prevarication and the avoidance of real answers.

Well, here's a piece from Sky News reporting on the fact that the Commons Public Accounts Committee is taking the view that "the British public have been "grossly misled" and the original estimate for the Olympic Games was "totally unrealistic","

Difficult to argue with that conclusion, isn't it?

"There was no initial contingency fund set aside. In other words, no allowance was made for the possibility of overspending."

An original estimate without any contingency built-in, a failure to account for VAT, and a minimal security and policing allowance (Hell's teeth! The torch relay through London cost almost £750,000 alone!).

Anybody in the real business world responsible for putting forward such an original estimate would have been sacked long ago by now. But this is our Gov, and accountability, at least at that particular level, doesn't really seem to matter anymore, does it?

Moderated Out - As potent as what is allowed in

A few days ago I posted on a blog in Nature and, it seems, ended up 'moderated out'.

Hence I have created that label to help track if I ever get put in eventually, and just to create an archive of where and when it happens.

It's a technique worth noting, if only for being as pervasive as it can be powerful. Rather depending on the scope, reputation and heft of the medium, what folk read can only influence their views, and if they only get to read one set of views, or see a huge imbalance between differing ones, it's also hard to see how one would avoid thinking that there is a majority at work. And be swayed by a perceived 'group think'.

Hence editors have a huge power, especially online, which is seen erroneously as 'open'. What they choose to leave in, change or leave out can have profound effects.

As a blog 'owner', I can see why and how certain moderating rules need to apply, which is the chink in the armour of any censorship debate. Who decides, and what is the limit?

But often it is pretty clear what the reasonable rules are. BBC has them. Guardian CiF has them. I have them. And usually they revolve around good taste, decency, manners and adhering to certain standards of factual accuracy even if wild subjectivity can creep in.

So far I have not had to purge anything... and fingers crossed I won't. And if I do I hope to be able to make clear why in an acceptable way to the spirit of free debate I wish to encourage. I fear I cannot say that many of even our most major national media are quite so true to even their own rules.

On top of the subject at hand, there is also an equally pernicious moderation at play, and that is when the moderator feels they are being 'dissed'. Depends how it is done of course, but often it just comes across as precious. Hence why I no longer contribute to such as Biased BBC, though I still lurk.

Here's another, just to add to the list. It's an ad blog, for heaven's sake.

Here's what they posted: Is it possible to separate the Olympics from politics?

Here's my reply: 'You are joking, right? Let's just look at our history books. I repeat, let's...'

I remain unclear why it was not deemed worthy of inclusion.

MUFTA - Flaming

It's a new acronym: MUFTA (Metaphor (Unfortunate) For The Age)

And I am not starting off with an enviro one, but just feel like sharing.

I was just watching the news and thought what I saw applicable to kick off.

A minor ex-TV kids' show 'celebrity' gets top billing on Sunday TV through being targeted by a human rights protester whilst participating in a PR stunt first dreamt up by Josef Goebbels, staged by a totalitarian regime feted by a theoretically ethically-driven democratic host country with stuff to sell and its eye on the future.

Welcome to the world in 2008. Now what was/is the Olympics about again?

Addendum - Quote of the day (referring to the, um, minders/bouncers):

'What has Great Britain become when we let foreign government heavies roam our streets beating people up? Do we not have enough of our own home grown thugs in uniform to do that?'

From what I saw I think they were both well represented... and already competing. Faster! Higher! Stronger!

BBC - Newsnight

Gaurdian - This sporting fiasco

Olympics coverage? Or a new type 'big brother'?

When I saw the number of staff that the BBC were sending to Beijing this summer, to cover the 'Orympic Games', of course, that was my initial silly thought. According to this from the Daily Mail, they are sending 100+ more staff (437!!) than Great Britain is sending competitors!

Now, why so many staff? That's what; perhaps a full camera crew for every five competitors? Are they going to be filming the entire squad 24/7 while they eat, sleep, do their ablutions and train - a la 'big brother' style?

Or just maybe it just happens that it's time for the four yearly jolly, for as many as possible of the Beeb's great and good (and bad?), to the planet's largest sporting event?

Seems to be an awful lot of staff for what will probably be the usual crappy coverage ("sorry, the local director cut the shot just as the finalists were approaching the finishing line - we'll find out what happened for you later").

I just want to know who the hell will be left here in the UK? Imagine the possibilities:-
- Breakfast News with Katie the tea lady?
- The Evening News presented by Sonya the night cleaning lady?
- Cricket highlights presented by the BBC Centre Security Doorman (2nd cousin twice removed of Michael Vaughan)?

Well, I suppose our license fee has to be put to some good use! And, of course, there will be a full explanation of the cost breakdown, and full accountability, after the event, won't there?

What a waste!

Wasting money deliberately? Or just plain incompetence?

Those were the two questions that popped into my head when I spotted this in The Times earlier today.

The Olympic aquatics centre (the posh name for the swimming pool complex) was originally estimated (and budgeted) at some £70 million. The current costing (errrm, no, still not actually fixed) now stands at some £214 million.

Now an additional £144 million might not seem an obscene increase in the overall governmental scheme of Olympics expenditure, but, to me, it smacks of utter incompetence in the initial estimating process. What the hell did they do? Sit around a table and pull random numbers out of a tombola?

Ah, OK, they blame the increase on VAT and inflation. "much of the disparity is explained by VAT and inflation. While venue costs estimated during the bidding process were in 2004 prices, they must be stated in 2012 prices."

So, with VAT fixed at 17.5% (or, just maybe, our gov knows that VAT will be set at a rate of 100% by 2012?), and inflation at the official government figures of just over 2.3% (not that any single one of us believes that anyway), we get a tripling in cost between 2004 and 2012? Come on, we are NOT that stupid!

And, what a surprise, the bidding contract was won and assigned to ..... deep intake of breath ..... a sole bidder! "The Olympic Delivery Authority is set to sign a construction contract with Balfour Beatty, the sole bidder."

As well as incompetence and profligacy, this smacks to me of profiteering, greed and may even be tinged with a hint of fraud. And all that money is coming out of your own back pocket one way or another to be trousered elsewhere!

Whatever happened to accountability? LOL!

Addendum: (1/2/08)
The Daily Mail appears to have identified a few 'fat cats' which just might partly explain why costs are overrunning so much.

See what you get when a committee is involved

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?