I don’t quite know how they managed it but apparently the London Olympic logo cost Â£400K according to the Telegraph this morning. Although the Telegraph story is accompanied by a photo of the grinning London Mayor nothing appears on the Mayor’s own website. There are two explanations for this. Either the Mayor is embarrassed, unusual I know, or the Mayor’s press machine has been slow to take up the story.
The Â£400K figure is hard to believe although they did use top notch brand consultants Wolff Olins. Apparently “LOCOG last night stressed that the logo was paid for by private money”. If the London Olympics is a private venture why are we spending Â£10 billion of public money on it?
You can see how the Wolff Olins guys managed to talk LOCOG out of the cash when you see the twaddle they spout about the project:
The emblem is 2012, an instantly recognizable symbol and a universal form, one already closely associated with the Games in London and marking a moment of change for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Neither an appendage to London nor the Olympic symbol, it brings the two together in an inclusive way. It is a brand which can be read and understood by people of all ages, around the world.
Echoing London’s qualities of a modern, diverse and vibrant city, the London 2012 emblem is unconventionally bold, deliberately spirited and unexpectedly dissonant. Comprising neither sporting images nor pictures of London landmarks the emblem is designed to signify that while the Games is hosted in London, it is not just for London, but also for the UK and for the world. That it is as much for the athletes as for everyone, regardless of age, culture and language. It is a brand to help take the Olympic and Paralympic Games into a new era.
They do talk a good game but what a load of bilge? Why does it not surprise me that the word inclusive creeps into this nurge? Is inclusive a synonym for unexceptional, bland, unidentifiable?