The logo for the 2012 olympics in London was revealed the other day.  The brand was developed at a U.S. equivalent cost of nearly $800,000.  According to London 2012 organizing chairman, Sebastian Coe,

“This is the vision at the very heart of our brand.”

 Already, an online petition for a new logo has been started and gained over 40,000 virtual signatures in the first 2 days.  One british citizen was upset that the “0″ looks too much like Australia.  Most simply called it “rubbish”.  I certainly agree.  I wonder where the money went.  Were there focus groups?  Were people asked what image they get when they think of the olympics and London?  Did they respond with “Shards of glass?” 

More than likely this mediocrity is the result of something that’s pretty common: Too many cooks in the kitchen.  I’m certain the olympic brand probably has to go through some kind of board of directors made up of a group of self-important people who each want to press their own agenda.  In projects like this, the end result is often some sort of compromise.

Compromise can be good in things like marriage and contract negotiations, but it’s seldom a good thing in design.  Usually you end up with elements from multiple designs that all good, but very different.  The result is often bad design.  I’m extremely confident that given $800,000, we could come up with a logo that kicks the pants off this one.  I’m also pretty confident that the firm they hired already did…it just wasn’t chosen.