Olympic Logo a No Go?

THIS is the new £400,000 Olympic logo for the 2012 Olympics in London, and less than a week after it was unveiled it is already under strict criticism from what seems to be the entire nation.

Almost half a million pounds was spent designing and creating it and it's difficult to see what exactly this money went on. Obviously not on gaining user feedback that's for sure. And with the recent revelation that the logo is actually dangerous to people with epilepsy and migraine sufferers, obviously not basic health and safety checks either.

But regardless of the costs, is the logo really that bad? In a recent television survey, they found 85% of people disliked the new Olympic logo, which leaves only a minor 15% who actually like it, or at the very least don't dislike it. In my personal opinion I dislike the logo immensely but from a design point of view is it any good?

Well, for a start it is obviously a very distinct shape unlike any other logo I have seen before, and it is quite memorable too being shaped as the 20-12 letters. It can be used in both colour and in black and white format, and uses it's space wisely. In fact the only one of the 4 logo design principles the logo doesn't meet is that if it were to be used at too small a size the word London, and the rings may become distorted and be hard to read/see. But 3/4 isn't bad.

This is a point of which I think must be remembered, that no matter how many of the 4 design principle boxes you tick, no matter how much time, money or effort you put into designing a logo, you must do the basics things such as researching your audience, or you too will end up with something similar to the London 2012 Olympic one.

Online Petition - Change the London 2012 Olympic Logo