Wednesday, June 06, 2007

What interests me is......

...why did we have to have a new logo? Because everything has to have a logo or it's felt not to exist? Because there are companies who specialise in corporate overhaul? Because somebody thought they might be able to sell some merchandise? In which case isn't the old logo or some adaptation of same the most appealing thing? Familiarity and authority is what people buy into. The London Underground map, the Yankees logo, Coca Cola, Nike, Apple, the Beatles and so on. You can update things but you can only do it if nobody notices. Anything you have to unveil in public is doomed out of hand. And if it's bad that's even worse.


  1. Putting aside the glib way Tessa Jowell spends our money and the disingenious nonsense they all spoke at the press conference, how about this "when logos attack ":

    the logo can cause fits!

  2. In fairness I think they do need a logo even if it is to sell a few t shirts at Heathrow to re-coup a tiny fraction of the billions.

    Interesting that the BBC threw it open to the public and within a day they had designs which in my opinion were much better. Yet as it's taxpayer's money we have to fork out half a million for that!

  3. All the best logo's penguin, fairy liquid, nike seem to have been a quick idea knocked up at the last moment. Also the expense is partly down to the consultant culture we are in, which causes overspend in all governemnt projects. Until we get projects paid on fixed fees rather than on day rates the consultants of which the Olympics has 1000's will keep fiddling, adding days and getting paid. See also all government computer contracts, building schemes and management reorganisations.