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.