The Underscore Archives

On 05/06/07, Michael Trim <Michael.trim at ibltd.com> wrote:
> At least it got a reaction and became instantly recognizable, a branding
> success Shirley?

If by "success", you mean "near-universal revulsion", then yes.

There's so much wrong with it, it's just unbelievable:

1. It's got nothing to do with Britain (except graffiti, of which this
isn't a great example)
2. It's got nothing to do with London (see above)
3. The premise that a large-scale event such as the Olympics should
have a logo with a defined "target demographic" is absurd
4. It's edgy, "now" and a bit trendy (except fashion has moved on
already). It will be dated in five years' time
5. It looks like someone performing an, ahem, *act* on someone else
6. It's barely recognizable as the numbers 2012
7. "london" and the olympic rings were clearly an afterthought

I could go on...

Tim