06-06-2007, 02:14 AM
I dont' know if anyone has read about this, but since I live in the UK I find it quite unbelievable that the tax payer had to fork out £400,000 for what is essentially cr*p.
To compare and contrast, let's start with the logo that won London the actual bid to host the Olympics in 2012.
![[Image: london1.jpg]](http://www.38one.com/image/london1.jpg)
Now, let's move onto the 'brand new design'
![[Image: olympic_logo_390x220.jpg]](http://www.creativematch.co.uk/blogs/MarkLesbirel/Images/olympic_logo_390x220.jpg)
which comes in 4 shades of (ugh) Neon and is supposed to be the heart and soul of the brand. It's supposed to show 2012 - but I mean, until someone pointed that out, I really couldn't see that it was anything resembling London/Olympics - aside from the (required) Olympics logo and 'London'.
Even if they don't bring back the old logo, there are plenty of others far better that have been submitted here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6719747.stm
[END RANT]
Dear everyone, sorry about the rant!
(p/s: The first image is from 38one.com and the second from Creativematch.co.uk)
To compare and contrast, let's start with the logo that won London the actual bid to host the Olympics in 2012.
![[Image: london1.jpg]](http://www.38one.com/image/london1.jpg)
Now, let's move onto the 'brand new design'
![[Image: olympic_logo_390x220.jpg]](http://www.creativematch.co.uk/blogs/MarkLesbirel/Images/olympic_logo_390x220.jpg)
which comes in 4 shades of (ugh) Neon and is supposed to be the heart and soul of the brand. It's supposed to show 2012 - but I mean, until someone pointed that out, I really couldn't see that it was anything resembling London/Olympics - aside from the (required) Olympics logo and 'London'.
Even if they don't bring back the old logo, there are plenty of others far better that have been submitted here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6719747.stm
[END RANT]
Dear everyone, sorry about the rant!
(p/s: The first image is from 38one.com and the second from Creativematch.co.uk)