The Real Logo Story

After all the rigmarole over the London 2012 Olympic logo, the real story behind the brand strategy can now be revealed.

The supposed 'real' logo received near-universal condemnation when it was unveiled on June 4, 2007.  A faux media release described it as part of "a new brand and vision," and an emblem that "symbolizes the dynamic Olympic spirit and its inspirational ability to reach to people all over the world."  Crazy rumors suggested that the edgy smudge had cost 400,000 BPS (US$800,000), and had been designed by a make-believe firm called Wolff Olins, which was jokingly described as having "created brands that have become benchmarks for competitors and new paradigms in the industry."

It was all a brilliant ruse.

"My 4 year-old designed the logo in about 10 seconds," admitted London 2012 branding project team leader Ian Shmendrick.  "I mean, come on now, the thing is so jarring that it gave me a headache the first time I saw it.  The idea that anybody would believe it was the result of purposeful design says a lot about our expectations of branding, eh?  We paid my daughter with an Innocent smoothie.  I’m shocked anybody took it seriously."

This was the genius behind the campaign, however.  Billed as Everyone's Games, the project team needed to find a way to engage with its publics in a meaningful way.  As one member of the branding CRM team explained to me, "We needed to get attendees, viewers, sponsors, everyone involved now -- not just aware, but doing things with us -- so as to build tangible momentum toward the games."

So the solution was to generate consumer response via a fake logo announcement.

"A logo is just a blip in a news cycle consumed with war and other tidbits," continued Shmendrick.  "We needed to get past hoping for awareness, and connect with people with a call to action."

And take action they did.  The edgy smudge logo prompted thousands of letters and emails.  Journalists covered the controversy straight-faced, unaware of the ruse, which served to build attention and attract more commentary.  A video on the event web site was designed to make viewers dizzy, and did its work so well that people called for its removal...thus providing for the expected barrage of fresh media coverage.  It's fair to say that the organizers achieved more attention for the London 2012 logo than any other Olympic logo since the original debuted in Homer’s lesser-known tome Demitros With a Sunburn. 

"But that was only the beginning of our campaign,” added Lord Bazuntheit, honorary chairman of the design team.  “It would have been silly to aspire to nothing more than attention.  Why would we care about awareness with the games over 4 years away?  That’s why our branding team swung into high-gear to translate all of that attention to subsequent actions."

The campaign consisted of three basic elements: first, as planned, hundreds of individuals from around the world took it upon themselves to design their own versions of the logo.  The Daily Mail newspaper featured many of them, still unaware of the design team's branding strategy.  I’m told that sometime after the summer holiday, the campaign will sponsor an official 'design the logo' contest for people to submit and vote on their choices.  Much like the US's American Idol contest, these votes will be monetized via mobile phone calls. 

Better yet, this will help enable the second element of the strategy, which is to capture names, and to begin an ongoing, interactive campaign to involve people in a variety of aspects of the games.  Event details, decorations, volunteer opportunities, associated activities, and other topics will be 'put to the vote,' making the London 2012 games the first-ever truly people-driven event.

By doing so, people will have things to do, thus making the 2012 games relevant to their lives now, not just in the future.  The organizers believe that such real involvement in the brand is the way to make money and deliver a successful event.  "Our intention is to have sold all the tickets and a large amount of commemorative items before the games even begin," added Lord Bazuntheit.

"Sure, we’re spending 400,000 pounds, but on programs to get people doing things, not just thinking about us," the team CRM expert said.  "If we were to spend that on awareness or a logo, I bet we’d all get fired from our jobs!"

Finally, the third element involves corporate sponsors, who will, sometime early in 2008, mirror the organizer's engagement activities and begin their own consumer and employee-involving campaigns.

I expect that we'll see far fewer of the soaring imagery and high-flying language of past Olympic advertising; rather, companies will focus expenditures on programs to train employees, involve consumers, and contribute to the quality of the games and the ideals they represent.  A campaign to get Londoners to fund and support teams from struggling countries is already in the works.  Word on the street is that broadcast TV is concerned about how such real-world actions will impact the ad spend.

What will the final logo look like?  Ultimately, it won’t matter.

"The London 2012 Games will stand for people being involved," said Shmendrick.  "Logos represent reality, not the other way around.  Maybe my 4 year-old will win the contest.  What matters is what people do, not the shape or color of the smudge."

But then again...

...maybe the logo just stinks.