Spoof, Protest, and Conspiracy: London 2012 Anti-Logos

Maybe it’s just because I’m based in London and so more aware, but this Olympics, more than any other, has been a target for spoof, protest, and conspiracy. Its staging has proved, so far, to be widely unpopular. Maybe this will change on July 27. It was unfortunate that just after London won the race to stage the Games, the global banking system collapsed, with its repercussions still painfully felt. An event that takes such an investment is always going to have to fight a battle of ideology with other worthy recipients of public finances. In a time of austerity, the idea (not necessarily true) that money directed to the Olympics was coming from welfare payments or hospitals was doubly problematic. The Olympics seemed a luxury London couldn’t afford, and the Olympic movement became an idea people were mistrustful of.

To the onlooker, the Olympics and its attendant bureaucracy give every appearance of being a multinational corporation. Through its ownership and aggressive protection of Olympic branding, along with its cut of all sponsorship and broadcast income, the nonprofit IOC controls great wealth and influence, outside of but part of the political class.

The IOC makes political decisions when it chooses to allow an apartheid-supporting South Africa to take part in the Games, or when it permits China, with its poor record on human rights, to stage them. This seeming lack of moral focus, along with scandals of drugs, bribery, and black-market tickets, erode the moral superiority of the Olympics. As the IOC looks to secure use of its brand ever more aggressively, its rhetoric is that of a business corporation more than a celebration of sporting prowess. This has been in evidence with its myriad sponsorships and draconian rules on branding, its bullying of small businesses with similar names, and its banning of non-officially-branded food and drink from Olympic venues.

On top of this, many Londoners feel disconnected and even excluded from the Olympics, an event on their doorstep but mostly inaccessible to them. Tickets are expensive and hard to obtain, and the sparkly new stadia are fenced off behind barbed wire, with anti-aircraft gun emplacements positioned on tower blocks. The legacy of these sporting facilities and the area’s predicted urban regeneration is, of course, unproved. All of this has contributed to the Olympics unpopularity, and people’s loss of interest.

The sense of separation between the Olympics and local communities was crystallized in the identity of the Games. It is a logo and typeface not crafted in any traditional sense. An identity without the system or cultural signifiers associated with the Olympics (the familiar stacking of cultural symbol, rings, and wordmark). An “idea” identity, focused on a specific (young) audience. An identity based on lettering—and one so adaptable, deconstructable, and rearrangeable that it was all but inevitable people would use it to make their own messages.

In attempting this graphic identity—in line with the London Organising Committee’s proposal to the IOC of focusing on youth—the design agency Wolff Olins was doing something different. They were also opening themselves up to criticism of pastiching youth graphics and neglecting “London” symbolism and the geographic or national iconography that is a standby of Olympic logos. 2012 was not an identity that would sit comfortably in middle England. Britain has a deserved reputation for its creative industries and an equally deserved reputation for its fondness for nostalgia.

There was a huge reaction. News and entertainment media were outraged by the alleged cost and design of the logo. Designers discussed it at length in magazines and on blogs and message boards. The widely disseminated view that the logo—as a single object, alone—incurred a fee of £400,000 led to much opprobrium directed at Wolff Olins. Non-designers were aghast, and sent their “done for free in ten minutes but better than the official one” logos to the BBC, which amassed 84 designs.

Deconstructed and rearranged versions of the logo started to appear. Ludicrous conspiracies alleging it to be a swastika or spelling ZION went viral. The logo’s angular drawing was easy to mimic, and was quickly spoofed as RIP-OFF, PARODY, CRAP, or SHIT—or, more darkly, as NAZI or JEWS, with the swapping handily between the letters H, O, R and A. Others lampooned its referencing of youth street-style graphics, even though this emphasis on youth supported the London Organising Committee’s presentation to the IOC. You may not like it, but Wolff Olins was on-brief.

It was rearranged, inevitably, as people having sex. The most popular of these showed Lisa and Bart Simpson engaged in—to use my favorite media euphemism—a “sex act.” This had myriad versions, some appropriately animated, some with helpful color-coding or additions to make their point.

These viral anti-logos were for a while a phenomenon, they defined their moment, and demonstrated the immediacy with which ideas of spoof and protest could be disseminated. They were crude, rude, funny, weird. They made their point in the same way as the political or protest banners, T-shirts, badges, etc. you might see at marches or in picket lines, but infinitely more quickly.

Find branding and  logo design books and downloads at MyDesignShop.com.

7 thoughts on “Spoof, Protest, and Conspiracy: London 2012 Anti-Logos

  1. Simon Shepherd

    What I don’t like about the logo is what I consider it’s failure to meet the brief. Perhaps not the exact brief given to WO, but the brief that should have been. There are many things in London/UK youth culture beyond the somewhat pathetic aping of US street art, these are the things I would have liked to have seen. OK,  a nod to the graffiti tag would have been bearable, but to have this as the only thing? I live opposite a school in North London and I can say, hand on my heart, that there’s a lot more going on than this pastiche of rap videos. If they must have gone the graffiti route then something a bit more ‘Banksy’ (god forgive me) rather than Brooklyn would have been more appropriate. Can’t stand it.

  2. Aya Al Bawwab

    I think the logo is original in terms of design. It does not reflect the history and culture of the Olympic Games at all though, which was intended, as Ollins intended to target a youthful audience. However, the spoofing is less about the design itself. The Olympics have proved to be very costly with no clear urban plans for what the site will turn into, after the games are over. not to mention issues of gentrification that have been taking place ever since Londoners won the bid. Ofcourse, the design costs for the logo were very high (around 400,000 pounds), but the issue is not Design itself. Design is only a tool for spoofing. It is not enough to judge wether a logo appeals to the audience or not. We, as designers, should constantly dig into the politics of design.

  3. Pingback: Buzz Poole on London Olympics Design and Protest

  4. Pingback: Logo Design This Week 2.27 | Logomaker Blog