DarJoLe

Better late than never I guess...

Does anybody have photos of this year's sponsor pavilions? And also of that fan zone at the apex of the Park?

Paralympic look is only swapping out the Olympic rings for the Paralympic Agitos, and adding sponsor boards to the corrals around the field of play. However, from that shot above it looks to me like they are simply covering up the Olympic rings with blue tarpaulin...

After the bright festival colours of London and Rio I wonder if Tokyo will go back to a smaller, muted, but crisp palette of colours. I can definitely see venues using the indigo blue of the logo but with sharper pops of brighter colours in certain areas say around the Rings/Agitos. As much as I would love to see red embraced it is not a good colour for TV and tends to 'bleed' on camera. It will also be interesting to see how much digital Tokyo embrace. Digital tier dressing is now commonplace across the sporting world, but cost and reluctance from the IOC has led to print-based venue look being the default. Whether Tokyo begins to nudge the IOC towards an animated look in their venues remains to be seen. I would love for the pictograms to be similar to the CGI animations at the handover, almost 3D-esque with a hint of 'Tron'. I have good feelings about Tokyo. Like London I think they could really take the concept of a 100% integrated look of a games to new heights which I don't think Rio delivered.

London changed the colour combination for certain sports, aquatic sports were blue and yellow for example, more action-orientated orange and blue, blue and orange, etc. Heritage venues were a combination of purple and another colour. But London kept the overall graphic element the same throughout, so you had the burst graphic around the Olympic rings and radiating lines consistent across all the venues surrounding the field of play, it was just the colours that changed. Rio's look comes from the overall graphic which they have cropped into, the issue being the crop is different for the field of play surrounds for the blue venues to the green venues to orange venues, and I believe this is what is causing a bit of inconsistency in the venues. I'm not sure it's necessarily the wrong approach, after all there is no real correct approach to an Olympic look, but it might have been better to either remove all non-green/orange/blue elements from the tier dressing, or use a section of all the colours. The hurdles, for example in athletics, had bits of the red and purple section of the Rio overall graphic, which looked a bit jarring with the majority blue and green venue. There have been some excellent moments with the look though which have bettered on London's; they managed to change the shape of the kayak boat numbers to the pebble shape which in London the sport federation were reluctant to, as well as the horse jump flags which was an absolute battle in London because of the sharp shard shape. It's just a shame the wayfinding, no doubt because of cost, has been a very standardised rectangular shape and not something like the pebble shape boards we saw when the look renders were unveiled. Tokyo will be interesting to see what kind of 'shape' their look takes on, in some ways after the bombastic festival and hi-colour look of London and Rio I wonder if they will go the other way and look more towards a sharp dark blue look with hints of red. We shall see.

The IOC will never allow the Paralympics to come first. It's an interesting political relationship between the two; the IOC do not particularly care about the IPC and what happens at the Paralympics, once the Olympic Closing Ceremony is done they are off and out of there. LOCOG was always challenged by the IOC as to why London 2012 was so integrated as an OCOG, they were never particularly enthused by the Games having the same logo for example, let alone decisions being made about the Olympics as to whether they affected the Paralympics. We were always warned against mentioning 'transition' (the logistics of turning an Olympic venue into a Paralympic venue) to the IOC as a reason to why something Olympic-related might not happen in the look, for example. The IPC on the other hand actually like being associated with the Olympics. It gives the Paralympic movement kudos and for them in some way they see the Olympics as the warm up to their event (which was the angle Channel 4 took in London in promoting the event). The biggest issue the Paralympics face is sponsorship and getting that into the games through advertising within the look for example, which was the biggest concern for the IPC on their visits and not, unlike the Olympics, about getting the event logos in the right places for broadcast and media.

The velodrome was looking excellent last night, very sharp.

It's really unfortunate Rio seems to have had problems with the delivery of the look. Whilst in some areas you can get away with a 'what the public don't know won't hurt them' it's annoying to see the lamp post holders actually still in place in the Olympic Park awaiting the banners. Whether these come remain to be seen. The dressing of the venues is rather haphazard, but they seem to have got the logos and FOP look in the right places, so the media at least should be happy with their shots. Some of the actual fitting leaves a lot to be desired, there's some ill-fitting tier dressing in some venues and it doesn't seem like it has been cared for in its installation in others. The high winds in the Park damaging barriers is unfortunate but it seems there's a people and logistics problem in clearing them up. At the end of the day its the sport that takes the priority and despite its complexities look is always seen even within most of the Organising Committees as nothing more than colour and wallpaper but it is an integral part of any Games's success. It's certainly working its magic in the colour stakes and bringing the sports to life and hopefully even though the Games have started the obvious challenges can be overcome.

Few more coming in...

I think it's a bit early to tell at this stage with just one sport. At the end of the day the logos all have to be in certain places along the length of tiers anyway, and the look or pattern that goes in between is repeated along the tier and around the venue. London's was the burst shard graphic around the Olympic Rings/Agitos with a hot spot of colour behind that faded to dark where the host city name was. Rio's is a crop of the blobby landscape graphic from which different elements of look are created. From what I have seen so far though, whether it be time constraints or budget cuts that dressing the venues has been an issue. London had this right up to the start of the Games but Rio seems to have only dressed parts of the football stadiums that are on camera for events rather than the whole venue. This may be because of ceremony factors though and more will appear overnight and before the next event. We will see. Gymnastics looks great with the all-green as a contrast to London's all-magenta and looking forward to seeing the orange of the beach volleyball. The colour will certainly pop and be memorable on TV and in photos.

I believe the venue colours are Orange FOP, green tiers Green FOP, orange tiers Blue FOP, green tiers The screen surrounds seem to match what the tier dressing is supposedly eventually to appear in the venues yet to have them dressed.

Very interesting to note that with the gymnastics and women's football so far, they have only dressed the first tier of the venue that faces the camera. Budget restrictions may have curtailed dressing the whole venue which is a real shame.

One of the things I'm interested in seeing is how Rio will translate their look into 3D spaces. I think we're already seeing hints in the renders of the Olympic Park, with the twisting walkway through the centre with its graphics embedded, similar to what London did with its grid and shard pattern emanating from the stadium onto the Park concourse. Also if they are using the logo as a starting point it will be interesting to see how this is extrapolated into 3D gantries, signage and wayfinding pieces. London was clever in that the nature of its linear triangular look meant architectural structures were easy to physically implement within their budget, more complex curves might be a larger challenge for Rio. Whatever they do, I just hope it is even more imaginative in terms of its scope on the field of play and pushes the level of integration even further than London managed.

But that's never likely to happen, is it? Logos are trademarked and copyrighted, and exist in Olympic terms for a maximum of seven years. In fact, I'd say the fact they can be used anywhere in the world is a positive thing! The idea of spreading a message, of garnering the people across the world under one brand or logo that speaks to everyone is surely a marketers dream? Afterall, London didn't exactly 'inspire a generation' across the globe with a British-themed travel guide-type logo. Olympic logos have wordmarks giving time and place anyway. I've always believed Olympic Games will soon move beyond the city they are hosted in, especially when in major international cities and countries that the world already knows about, and their reason for hosting the Games moves beyond a 2-week advert of the host city and into a more message based Games that has a global appeal to change, or inspire, or spread the word of a movement. A 'call to arms' so to speak. In this globalised world where people have instantaneous communication with the rest of the world people are already aware of far-flung cultures and countries. This isn't the sixties anymore when travel to another continent was seen as exotic. The real success of the Games will be it's ability to go beyond host cities and into spreading the positive message of its reason for being on a global scale, not an endless travel monologue with some sport thrown in.

Why?

Well obviously people aren't when the same basic arguments keep cropping up about it.

London didn't need to or want to promote its Games with something out of a travel guide, and it still amazes me people think Olympic logos need to. Olympic Games and the reasoning behind them will become less and less about geography and more about social responsibility in the 21st century, and its brand has to recognise that. The London Games were successful not simply because of its brand, but its mantra, its 'gravitas', its inclusiveness to the world, was harnessed through that logo. I can't say I feel that same connection to Rio's or many other Olympic logos. As I've said PC's brand feels more of a brand for the IOC than a Games, it still doesn't feel it has any message apart from the bland 'renewed passion', etc, whatever that means in today's world. It's not trying to do anything, achieve anything. It needs, and many other Games do, a call to action, a chance to actually change something.

I'm intrigued what a 'beautiful' logo is (I don't mean this despairingly!) but what I think has been 'missing' in terms of what Athensfan considers is the marriage of a logo to a brand, in that how successful is a logo in creating a brand world around it? Whilst logos can look 'beautiful' or aesthetically pleasing, how does the rest of the collateral associated with the product look? I think cracking that relationship is the key to a successful branding operation. I'm still ambivalent on 2018. It's a lot better in terms of brand recognition than the bid brand, but as I said its simplicity could be its downfall. It's just 'too' associated with the Olympic and IOC brand for me to discern the difference. It will be a very odd experience if they use these colours for their look, almost an Olympiced Olympic venue. Will the rings have enough clarity against all the elements? What exactly 'is' the message behind this? If the colours really are traditional Korean, is that what Korea is trying to portray themselves as at these Games? It all seems very mixed message.

The infill emblem was used quite a bit, with flag infills which required 204 permissions from NOCs (no easy task). The flexibility of the grid created a fantastic array of possibilities which ran through all the look, and the ability to change colour (from the core 4 colours unveiled at its launch) directly influenced the idea of venues taking on one of 11 colour combinations at Games time. In terms of it actually 'changing' its shape was a difficulty in legal terms, as copyright and trademark issues are not at the level of recognising polymorphic branding (a 'static' logo is all that can copyrighted, so most polymorphic logos usually have a fixed number of iterations, in LOCOGs instance it was the outline or 'frame' that was copyrighted. Changing that frame itself would need a new trademark). Also the infill wasn't used in venues simply because of cost, the original intention was for logos in each venue to have a display of their sports running through it. The cost of creating such bespoke logos in such a huge number of designs but low quantity of each made it impossible to justify. But LOCOG did pave new territory and the logo had its triumphs in practical terms that many will never have to really worry about, the fact it was a complete solid lock up with the London and rings inside it meant it's elements could ever be scaled incorrectly to each other (a problem having separate rings/city/design mark tends to happen with sponsors) and being one piece meant it was always installed correctly and little elements of it wouldn't be stolen or drop off after a few days into the Games (now that might be a problem with the 2018 one!) I agree that Gamesbidders did use it in a very creative manner, but many times I did look and think yeah that would never get past legal or the brand guardians. Despite its inherent flexibility and creativity, there were very strict rules regarding how it should be displayed. Maybe one day the brand guidelines will leak.

Yes I think he has a point. Olympic branding is an absolute minefield in terms of rules, and London only got away with what it did through sheer determination, and dare I say a little arrogance but it did push in the right direction, and you can see that in the rise of polymorphic branding that is now de rigeur in terms of marketing and brand application. In terms of 'best design', I think he means the juggle between being 'designed' well enough, or essentially having flexibility to adapt to a multitude of applications. You can have the most beautiful intricate logo that everyone falls in love with, but if it's completely inflexible in building a look out of, or garnering sponsorship, then the IOC will have to step in. After all, an unsuccessful OCOG is an unsuccessful Olympic Games, which in turn is an unsuccessful IOC at the end of the day.

Well they have to approve everything in terms of what an OCOG is proposing, so they do have ultimate say on what is a final design. But they aren't overarching gods who say yay or nay, more guiders along the journey who can advise. It's only in recent years the Olympic movement have become more aware of the power of branding a Games and creating a coherent look programme, which really kicked off at Salt Lake. Ideally, one of the biggest pieces of advice they give is to get your host city brand sorted early, before the problems of large numbers of stakeholders needing to sign everything off becomes an issue as time goes on and more people become involved. That way an OCOG can effectively guide their brand to the right people and not let it be dictated to by sponsors and various officials. I wouldn't say there's been any time the IOC have actually stopped a design for a particular reason. OCOGs are in constant communciation with them so nothing is a real surprise, and it's the job of the OCOG to devise a brand and merely the IOC to give advice on what to look out for an pitfalls that might come along. And of course there are the IOC's guidelines that it needs to adhere to in terms of ratios of rings to the logo emblem, but that's atypical brand practice.

The brand language is sound, and there's plenty of scope for the look and feel in animation, 3D, architecture, etc. This doesn't really say anything about what 'kind' of a Games this is going to be, nor any kind of message of what these Games are achieving, apart from being (as usually is the case with Olympic host cities) all about the culture of the country. Honestly, one day the Olympics will need to move on from this, it's getting bland. My biggest concern is the colours, which I appreciate are traditional Korean, but I'm amazed the IOC allowed them to use the same as the Olympic brand. I guess, in some ways, when I watch the launch video, I feel I'm looking at a brand for the 'Olympic Games' and not 'an Olympic Games'. I think it's simplicity will be a strength, and sadly, a weakness.