I thought I would open by commenting on the UK’s 2012 Olympic logotype, designed by the renowned branding agency Wolff Olins. Here is a logo that in my opinion is an example of an unattractive piece of design. No doubt creatives spent weeks or months developing it but I suspect that they wrote the sales talk to fit the logo, not designed the logo to fit the event! The jury is out on that. But since all the hype, this has become an extremely recognisable and individual brand for the UK Olympics in 2012.

So why has a piece of bad design - actually quite ugly and not representative, in my opinon, of the Olympic games- become so recognisable? My belief is that it is due to the hype surrounding it. Without the hype and PR, this logo is nothing. As a brand it is going nowhere - as dead as the Norwegian Blue parrot. What does this prove? It proves that a brand without marketing, without PR and without notoriety, is just simply an image with no association. Just a mark on a page.

In conclusion bad logo, great hype - memorable brand. Something to think about?