Counting the cost of bad publicity

It was the hottest blogging topic on Monday, most comments negative. But it cost £400,000, it took a year to design and is the work of brand consultants Wolf Ollins, their opening page is odd at the very least so maybe says a lot. Wolf Ollins claim the logo signifies inspiration, stimulation, access and participation; too early to tell? Well I suppose it encouraged participation if nothing else. The media showed at best apathy, the majority soliciting public comments. Today the death knell rings for the promo video, as it appears it can bring on epileptic fits (the logo only brought on apoplectic fits it seems; sorry couldn't resist)! There seems to be a lack of credibility in London 2012 and the ability of the nation to deliver, particularly after Wembley, this can only make the whole PR job even worse. How could they get it so wrong?

The vision at the heart of the brand

Branding is important, and the brand logo is the heuristic devise that symbolises all the qualities of the brand. And so it is with the London 2012 Olympics; Seb Coe unveiled their brand logo today saying "This is the vision at the very heart of our brand... "It will define the venues we build and the Games we hold and act as a reminder of our promise to use the Olympic spirit to inspire everyone and reach out to young people around the world... It is an invitation to take part and be involved". In support of this ethos, Tony Blair commented "When people see the new brand, we want them to be inspired to make a positive change in their life".

The BBC asked for comment, there are 1216 on my last visit and few are positive. There is also an e-petition [Online petition - Change The London 2012 Logo] calling for a change of logo; Jonathan Ellis' blurb reads "I feel it is an embarrassment and portrays our country in the worst possible way". There are already over 4,000 signatures. Given the cost, have they really got it so wrong and how? What is that people are so wound up over? It seems that brand logos mean a great deal to people but that the way in which they are invented, re-invented and launched acts as a call for criticism. I imagine that, had they been asked, Midland Bank (now HSBC) customers would not have recognised much symbolic value in their logo; now it is just accepted.

The bottom line though is the way that these logos are launched, where everyone is told what they represent. Semiotics tells us that decoding is personal not uniform or controlled. The second problem now is that anyone can offer comment in a very public way and seize the reading of a brand logo. Unless a miracle happens, this logo will permanently carry negative connotations as defined by these random public reactions which almost universally say, as one poster very simply put it, "it's cr@p".