How not to build a brand

Reuters:

Animated footage promoting the logo for the 2012 London Olympic Gameswas removed from the organizers’ Web site on Tuesday amid concern it could trigger epileptic fits. . . .
Critics of the emblem have described it as “hideous,” while organizers called it powerful and modern.

The clip’s removal follows comments by Professor Graham Harding, an expert in clinical neuro-physiology who developed a test used to measure photo-sensitivity levels in animated TV material.

“The logo should not be shown on TV at all at the moment,” Harding told the BBC. “It fails Harding FPA machine test which is the machine the television industry uses to test images.”

He said the footage did not comply with regulatory guidelines.

Yeah, but see how fast I get a cease and desist letter for using it here. Besides, isn’t it all about the buzz? In this case it’s a special kind of buzz, I guess.

email

Ron Coleman

I write this blog.

2 thoughts on “How not to build a brand

  1. The 5 fundamental elements of a Logo are
    1) Identity of source
    2) description of function
    3) memorable (easy to recall)
    4) impactful to build awareness
    5) In keeping with the integrity of the Brand personality

    In addition all brands should be both relevant and always distinctive. Ideally all of the above should be achieved with the focus on target audience.
    Before judging the particular brand it is necessary to ask what the desired personality of the product is or should be,

    Source.
    The Olympic games are well known and the numerous existing brand associations include noble competitive spirit, national pride and world participation. Even the question of non amateur taint was felt to detract from this symbol of perfection.

    The Olympic rings are extremely well known and are reinforced by the many fully-invested global sponsors and stakeholders.

    Unless mutually exclusive concepts, the London Olympics Brand should therefore combine the origins of both the Olympic ethos and the “desired brand personality” of London. Arguably the prestige of winning the Olympics is coupled to the even grater opportunity to relaunch and position the winning town in the global marketplace.

    Because the Olympics are held regularly and will move on to another venue in four years the element of the year should also feature as a unique element.

    Function
    The Olympic games are all about international sporting competition in a spirit of goodwill and fairplay. The treatment of the design and all its elements should indicate what the games stand for or at least be reminiscent of previous treatments to maximise recall. It is optimal to build on existing brand values rather than attempt to rebuild an entirely new brand personality.
    Arguably this is where the controversy arises. The proposed Brand has moved too far away from existing/previous Logos and the audience feel robbed.
    The Olympic Games logo should have similar gravitas and humanitas or the existing Olympics brand with a defined London element to distinguish it from other “sister” treatments.

    Memorable.
    The “edgy” and irregular design is unlikely to be very memorable in detail. It is highly complex and random as compared, say with the “shell” logo. It is unlikely that anyone with differing levels ofd artistic skill could readily reproduce even a similar rendering after a few exposures to the logo. This would make the logo less effective and require more commercial investment to “make it stick” in the minds of the audience. Ironically, it also allows for easy design-around opportunities for potential trademark infringers.

    Impactful
    It may be argued that the harsh jagged lines are highly impactful and noticeable. The recent controversy would support this view.

    In keeping with the integrity of the Brand personality
    It is in this area that the Logo is most questionable. Already the audience has failed to adopt and embrace the logo as part of their vision for the London Olympics. This would seem to be a major lest and perhaps, stumbling block. In the past few Logos that have been so rejected have had great success in the short and medium terms (and it may be argued that the useful life of this logo extends from launch to the end of the games in 2012)
    It is argued that the proposed logo lacks dignity, fails to reflect the noble vision of the Olympics or of the host city, and is in short “unfriendly”. The word London does not ring out nor do the iconic Olympic rings.
    The logo therefore does not stand up to the minimum requirements of a branding and appears to portend the loss of a significant opportunity for London and the Olympic movement.

Comments are closed.