As regular readers may already know (if there are any left that is, sorry for the lack of updates we have been busy in a good way but it has meant this has had to take a back seat for a little while) here at Yellow Car design we’re big fans of Olympic . . . → Read More: London 2012 Olympic Mascots]]>

London 2012 Mascots

As regular readers may already know (if there are any left that is, sorry for the lack of updates we have been busy in a good way but it has meant this has had to take a back seat for a little while) here at Yellow Car design we’re big fans of Olympic Design and to tie in with the recent Vancouver 2010 Winter games we made a post giving our views on all the Winter Olympic mascots there has been (although Vicky’s favourite were the Vancouver mascots I have a soft spot for the fruity cowboy/girl bears from Calgary 88 ).

Yesterday the mascots were revealed for the upcoming 2012 Summer Olympics to be held in London and they’re unsurprisingly (after the debacle that is the 2012 logo) rubbish! They look like a cross between Earthworm Jim and the secondary characters in 90′s kids show Reboot which after been melded together have then being polished into an inch of their life.

Earthworm Jim

Apparently they were designed with the help of focus groups made up of children and families which to me is a major no no. All focus groups do is basically make everything flat and beige, anything that stands out or has character is taken away as somebody in the group won’t like it leaving you with a finished article that while has function has very little form. Could you imagine David Carson changing his early style because somebody who viewed say a copy of Raygun had trouble reading it? Of course not and had he we would have been robbed of one of the great Graphic Design innovators of the last 20 years and while not really such a big deal the 2012 Summer Olympics not only have a shitty logo but now also have two metal slugs to go with it, thanks focus groups you rock!

Okay deep breaths, reading through the BBC article linked above there is the odd good thing about them: while at first the names seem pretty lame the reasons for them are quite good and the linking back to the history of the Olympics and how Britain played a part in the modern version is a nice touch and maybe gives kids a reason to study the Olympics in more detail as well as showing Britain in a good light. Also trying to bring other parts of the country into the Olympics by showing how they helped in the creation is a good idea although I’m sure if that’s how you’re going to be included they’d rather not be.

But then they ruin the good will by telling us that the mascots wear the Olympic rings as friendship bracelets which is just tacky… If these Olympics had been when I was young the mascots would have ended up looking like Mr T then having Olympic themed pogs, stickers, Game Boys or whatever else was flavour of the month in the school yard at the time.  The same children who gave these ideas have probably already moved onto many different things leaving the mascots out-dated before they Olympics have even taken place.

They’re also going to have their own Facebook and Twitter pages, sign up kids to read riveting updates such as ‘Sport is enjoyable’, ‘ The Olympics are good’, ‘We’re having acceptable levels of fun!’. I’m sure there also going to be an iPhone app on the way as well as whatever else is considered to be at the forefront of Internet technology. While I understand the reason for using these methods to connect I really just hate the way everything has to feature them in some way. If you ever watch the CBC Toronto news and the iDesk with Mike Wise 90% of the content is just whatever Apple, Google, Twitter and Facebook are doing that day. It’s like the easiest and most pointless job in the world but for some reason gets a major slot on the news where it just basically gives free advertising. Even though they have all innovated in the way we communicate and use the internet, at the end of the day (and maybe this is just me) it’s all rubbish and I would rather have a proper catch up with somebody I haven’t seen in years rather than have them  ‘like’ my update on what I ate for dinner…

This is going on way too long, the 2012 Olympic Mascots are awful and sit proudly alongside the terrible logo if you want to see for yourself  in more detail please click this link.

10 days left (at the moment of writing this blog) before the Winter Olympics & Paralympics Games. I don’t have much interest in the games themselves and probably won’t go out of my way in order to watch the events (except maybe the hockey). However, I do like the ‘Olympic Spirit’ AKA the advertising, . . . → Read More: Olympics Design]]>

Vancouver 2010

10 days left (at the moment of writing this blog) before the Winter Olympics & Paralympics Games. I don’t have much interest in the games themselves and probably won’t go out of my way in order to watch the events (except maybe the hockey). However, I do like the ‘Olympic Spirit’ AKA the advertising, the promotion, the merchandise, the website, and most of all: the visual identity of the games. I think that this year the inukshuk featured in the logo and the 3 mascots (Miga the Sea Bear, Quatchi the Sasquatch and Sumi, the Thunderbird) are doing an excellent job at representing Canada’s presence as the host of the Games. Most importantly (for me and for the purpose of this blog): the visual identity of Vancouver 2010 looks good, from a design perspective!

I was reading an article earlier today where people are debating the future of logos. David Law, partner at SomeOne, mentions that:

“While we all acknowledge that the logo is not about to disappear — and that it is still an important part of any brand toolkit — there is a case for applying more emphasis on brand worlds.”

He gives O2 as an example:

“When you look at brands like O2, its success lies in the richness and depth of its brand world (bubbles, blue grad etc.). This forms a flexible branded platform that is instantly recognizable — you could remove the logo and still know the brand. The logo in itself is not the ‘hero’.”

I think that Vancouver 2010 could have replaced the O2 example in the citation above. Why? Well, I don’t know about you, but when I look at all this year’s various ‘Olympic Spirit Items’ I can see a brand. The colours, the shape, the fonts, all that seem to be connected and in harmony. The logo of the Olympics itself is very strong, but isn’t necessarily a ‘hero’ because of all the other elements that support it. His brother the Paralympics logo, while still fitting in with the rest of the branding, is also very powerful. When I look at Salt Lake 2002′s visual identity, I don’t see a brand: I see 2 logos (1 strong, 1 weak) and 3 weird ’80′s-looking mascots.

Past Olympics branding (or lack of it), confirms that yes, branding does make a difference and compared to previous years we can clearly tell that a special attention has been paid to giving the same look and feel throughout the elements. The Olympics tumblers + bottle that I got proves that the whole thing works: even people mildly interested in the Games are spending money on it…

—Below you’ll find the Yellow Car Award winners (& losers) for Winter Olympics Design… Tell us what you think!

Olympics & Paralympics Logos + Mascots

Yellow Car Awards for:

…Best Overall Design/Identity: Vancouver 2010

…Best Logo: Torino 2006 (Olympics)

…Worst Logo: Nagano 1998 (Paralympics)   (what’s with the bunny shape?)

…Cutest Mascots: Nagano 1998

…Weirdest Mascot: Albertville 1992 (the starman really creeps me out, don’t know why…)

…Worst Overall Design/Identity: Salt Lake City 2002

…Most Punchable Mascots: Lillehammer 1994 (Kristin and Håkon have such punchable faces)

General Comments:

Vancouver 2010 - Stuff

• Neve and Guv, from Torino 2006, remind me of the dentist.
• The Sarajevo mascot looks semi-maniac, semi-cool.
• Orange must have been ‘Colour of the Year’ in 1984.
• The cowboy-bears from Calgary 1988 look way too nice and soft; it’s annoying.

vick.