Would you pay £400,000 for THIS?!

Honestly. I know it’s been much talked about before – endlessly, it would seem – but how on Earth did the London 2012 Olympics logo get passed?  There was uproar at the time and there still seems to be a lot of understandable unhappiness about it to this day.  Not only should it have never been approved in the first place but, once it had been unveiled, the London Organising Committee (LOCOG) should surely have listened to the feedback that it generated. It really should have been overturned, shouldn’t it?  It won’t be now of course…  and to think that £400,000 was spent on this monstrosity just beggars belief.

It’s a such a shame because it’s the first image that people get of the London 2012 Olympic Games, and it’s not a good one at all.  The other day I was reading a guide to good logo design and it summarised 5 key criteria for a successful logo:

1. Memorable
2. Simple
3. Versatile
4. Timeless
5. Representative

It gave more detail on each of these, of course, but without boring you with all the details, I think we can safely say that the London 2012 logo scores an embarrassing 1 out of 5. And the ’1′ is merely because it is memorable for all the wrong reasons!

Does anyone out there reading this actually like the logo? Good or bad, please tell us what you think of it!

Useful links:
London hotels
London B&Bs
London self-catering
London attractions