Read Full Biography
David Armano is VP of Experience Design with Critical Mass. This is his personal blog where he shares thoughts + opinions that are solely his own. Logic+Emotion exists at
the intersection of business + experience
design—where passive consumers become active participants.
GREATEST HITS
User Experience Building Blocks
Never Forget Where You Come From
Got Juice? (Podcast with Jaffe)
Human Hierarchy + Collaboration
HP is blogging. Why aren't YOU?
Visualizing Social Media Network
Interaction Design Made Simple
In Around, Outside The Sandbox
Holy Trinity of Experience Design
« The Future Of Advertising? | Main | London 2012. What Was Chosen. »
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/725252/19075466
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference London 2012. What Would You Choose?:
Speaking At:
Forrester Consumer Forum 08
IDEA 2008
O'Reilly Web 2.0 Expo
Chicago New Media Summit
The Conference Board
Ad Age Digital Marketing
MIX 08
Interaction 08
UI 12
CanUX
In The News
Adweek Spotlight
Conversation Economy
Conversation Architects
IN Blogs
Best of 2006
Overnight Success
A Blog's Eye View
Video Clips
MIX 08
Interaction 08
Forrester 2007 Forum
Chicago Office
Road To Dell
Chat with Ze Frank
Blog's Eye View
CM Links
Experience Matters
Always in Beta
Beta Reel
12 Consumer Values for Your Wall
Navigators, Explorers, and Engaged Participant
Top 10 Things You Can Do During A âBlogoutâ
Rocketbust: Itâs About Talent
Is Creativity the New Innovation?
It's All About the Custoconsumuser
But What About the Touchpoints?
First Impressions, Blogs, and Your Personal Brand
Need Inspiration? Get Out of Your Sandbox
Confessions of a Dot-com Survivor
We Need More T-Shaped Creativity
Delight = Brand + Experience
I do know how it ends, but of those, either 2 or 4, preferably 2.
Posted by: Chris M. | Tuesday, June 05, 2007 at 03:23 PM
I'd probably cast my vote with "None of the above." They're all too cute by half, if not three-quarters.
If I had to choose one from what is available, I'd pick #2, #4, or #5.
My first instinct was to pick #5, but I can see the challenge with incorporating it into a lot of designs.
Posted by: Cam Beck | Tuesday, June 05, 2007 at 03:43 PM
I like 4 or maybe 2. I think 6 and 1 are the weakest of the lot.
Posted by: Kristina Meyer | Tuesday, June 05, 2007 at 05:02 PM
I know how it ends and as a Brit I'm ashamed. I'd go for 4, then 2, then 5. I'm interested in what the IOC have to say, given their tight control over the five rings.
Posted by: Dave | Tuesday, June 05, 2007 at 05:22 PM
4 because it leverages the equity on the five rings in a playful, clean way. But that's also a demerit; you probably don't want to mess with that equity, plus it means your logo isn't really
5 because it's the most iconic, reproducible, recognizable of the bunch and the only one that attempts a story about the host country. Solid vertical composition/weight but enough energy in the frilly banner things to lend some dynamism.
The rest are way forced; trying too hard to make something out of the date (except the derivative underground thing), and dates aren't really that interesting. I'm scared to find which one they chose. They do have designers in the UK, yes?
Posted by: G.B. Veerman | Tuesday, June 05, 2007 at 05:55 PM
i would like to see the best of these (1, 2 & 4) combined somehow. none of them really do it for me as a "finished" logo.
Posted by: maria | Tuesday, June 05, 2007 at 06:06 PM
A new agency.
Posted by: Tim Siedell | Tuesday, June 05, 2007 at 06:10 PM
5 - First because it is conservative, which most people's taste tends to prefer. I'm not saying it is right, just saying it fits. It also incorporates the country image. It can be scaled down to fit on most any article of clothing or medal.
Second - I seem to have an affinity for the number 5.
BTW - if the logo is this bad how bad are the medals going to be? Anyone remember the Salt Lake medals? Uugh.
Posted by: Roger Anderson | Tuesday, June 05, 2007 at 06:10 PM
Not crazy about any of these but I'd pick 2 if I had to choose from these.
The truth however hurts a lot more...
Posted by: Marco | Tuesday, June 05, 2007 at 06:11 PM
i want 4 and 5... but more on number 4! 0_o
Posted by: jPlamano | Tuesday, June 05, 2007 at 07:13 PM
Tim is right. We're all ragging on the 'winner', but which of those logos is really anything to write home about? I think #2 and #5 are average efforts, but this is far from a solid group. I can see another 3 logos that likely would have resulted in the 'what were they thinking?' response that we are hearing for the 'winner'.
Posted by: Mack Collier | Tuesday, June 05, 2007 at 07:31 PM
I like 2, 4, and 5 (somewhat). If I had to guess, I'd say they're going to go with #5 — it has that 'Olympic committee' feel.
If I had to pick, I'd probably go with #4.
Posted by: Adam Kayce : Monk At Work | Tuesday, June 05, 2007 at 08:11 PM
I think #2 is tops in this bunch. But I agree with Mack, let's see some more.
In fact, I think #2 is well ahead of any others on the sheet. The only problem I have with it – and this is no small comment given the event – is that the rings seem thrown in, an afterthought.
The type, however, is smart, fun and rewarding.
Posted by: Mark Goren | Tuesday, June 05, 2007 at 08:20 PM
Start over, I say, using #4 as the basis
So easy to be the monday-morning quarterback, but anything but #6--it's perfectly hideous.
Posted by: Lisa Gates | Tuesday, June 05, 2007 at 08:41 PM
I can't decide from among 2, 3, or 4. Probably a sucker for 3 because EVERYone knows about London's Tube. 2 and 4 are comforting probably because I automatically equate those rings with the Olympics. Perhaps for all these reasons I should choose 1?
I'll be interested to see the results of the unofficial blogger polling.
Posted by: Dan Mandle | Tuesday, June 05, 2007 at 09:56 PM
I know how it ends too, but..
#1 - Looks like MTV / VH1 type TV station logo.
#2 - Does that say "Zordon"??
#3 - Yawn.
#4 - A little imagination, but needs refining.
#5 - Visually appealing.
#6 - Is that font related to Comic Sans?
#7 - I've seen this one like 20 times and just finally realized that the numbers weren't JUST screwed up. They are screwed up AND make a silly running stick figure man.
Are any of theses fit to represent an world-wide event, a country, or deserving of a rumored US$800,000 budget. I think not.
Posted by: Justin Pease | Tuesday, June 05, 2007 at 10:06 PM
Wow, guess a bunch of you have not seen what got selected. #6 is what made the cut. I agree than none really "nailed it" though I do think 4 shows potential. And I'm with Lisa Gates on this. It is "perfectly hideous". But see my next post.
Though personally I think the "winning" logo is ugly—I also think it's a poor example of visual communication. It doesn't tell us much. It doesn't do London or the Olympics justice. It is "just a jaggy picture" to quote Seth.
Posted by: DA | Tuesday, June 05, 2007 at 10:09 PM
If I had to choose one of these I'd say #4 and #5 are the best options but I didn't really like any of them - especially the winning one.
Posted by: LaSandra Brill | Wednesday, June 06, 2007 at 01:10 AM
Number 4 would have been a much beter choice. Really clean design.
Posted by: cubus | Wednesday, June 06, 2007 at 05:23 AM
I would go for number 4, but how come no one likes 3?
Hopefully those who made the final decision will come back on it - it's just unbelievable.
Posted by: Michele | Wednesday, June 06, 2007 at 06:40 AM
As far as London is in UK, logo #5 looks best to me.
Posted by: Todor Christov | Wednesday, June 06, 2007 at 08:06 AM
#6, but the Olympic rings and type in the logo are not working for me. The other logos are rather predictable (excluding #1), and not very compelling .
Posted by: John | Wednesday, June 06, 2007 at 09:08 AM
I like number #4 the best although I know the winner.
Posted by: Jessica | Wednesday, June 06, 2007 at 09:40 PM
What a joke! I would have chosen number #4, but i know who won.
Posted by: Stijn | Thursday, June 07, 2007 at 09:39 AM
Number 2. London in a heartbeat.
Posted by: Lori Magno | Thursday, June 07, 2007 at 04:35 PM
I'm a lil late to the game, but I like #4 the best.
And I really don't understand the requirement to make the design elements spell out "2012". Seems a bit cliched to me
Posted by: Steven C. | Friday, June 08, 2007 at 03:30 AM
Number 4.
Posted by: Instinctive Traveller | Tuesday, June 12, 2007 at 11:30 PM
I agree with the above commenter who said this is all rather predictable. I think they are uninspired and it is no surprise that in such a field that anything that is even just a little out of box triumphs.
Posted by: Gino | Thursday, June 14, 2007 at 07:28 PM