Jump to content

New Sochi Logo Leaked?


gotosy

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 222
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Regardless of personal tastes, I think they are creating a very stong brand.

It doesn't bother me to be an all-type logo. A brand isn't only constructed by a logo...

Have a look at all of those below:

Nokia_logo2.jpg

Marlboro3.jpg

gillette-logo.gif

sony%20logo.jpg

Philips%20logo.jpg

I think the trouble is this is an event, its a moment in time, it needs to inspire people. All those logo's are for companys making products, physical things. I dont want to diss it too much because as with London I think the infills if done well will bring it to life. At the moment for me its just ok.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the trouble is this is an event, its a moment in time, it needs to inspire people.

I think you may be wrong, at least partially.

London's logo is not intended to brand London, but to brand London 2012. Everyone understands that. However that is, I think, quite different to the intentions for Sochi's logo.

This logo, I think, is going to define Sochi in the long term and aims to sell a relativly unknown city (unlike London) to the world. It's a brand for a city, not just for an event, and as such has been designed with longevity and instant accessability in mind. I think after the Games the 2014 and Olympic rings will be dropped and the resort of Sochi will have its own brand which will, because of the Olympics, be recognised the world over. A good idea and a sound strategy for a city which, unlike London, most won't have heard of.

London's logo will always be associated with London 2012. Sochi's I think, will come to define Sochi itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the branding, hate the logo.

Sochi.ru

2014

Hurray, I am now a Olympic logo designer :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, i'll be frank. I'm OK with sochi's and london's logos.

The problem for me is that they are not logos. They are bearly defined shapes that only function in a well defined context. There is nothing "wrong" with that. The organizers spend tons of money on posters, pictures, etc. so no matter the "logo", considering the amount of meony thrown around, the final look will awlays be GREAT, b/c its backed by great context (i.e. snow chrystals, modern art, etc.). However to me that is not a "logo". For me a logo is something that can be as small as a 3cm X 3cm picture that says EVERYTHING about the games including the snow chrystals and modern art. This is the reason why logo's are so difficult to design, you have to cram ALLLLLL that into a small symbol.

To me Londo's "logo" and Sochi's "logo" are not logos. They are simply a "frame" that will define the other artistic componets of the olympic look. There is nothing wrong with that... its just htat they need to stop calling them "logos".... LOL :blink::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they quite obviously are logos sredetsfan. Sony's logo is a logo much like Sochi's. Nike's logo is a logo more like London's. Just because there's no running man, doesn't mean they don't define what the Games stand for in each case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you may be wrong, at least partially.

London's logo is not intended to brand London, but to brand London 2012. Everyone understands that. However that is, I think, quite different to the intentions for Sochi's logo.

This logo, I think, is going to define Sochi in the long term and aims to sell a relativly unknown city (unlike London) to the world. It's a brand for a city, not just for an event, and as such has been designed with longevity and instant accessability in mind. I think after the Games the 2014 and Olympic rings will be dropped and the resort of Sochi will have its own brand which will, because of the Olympics, be recognised the world over. A good idea and a sound strategy for a city which, unlike London, most won't have heard of.

London's logo will always be associated with London 2012. Sochi's I think, will come to define Sochi itself.

If thats what they wanted to achieve it needed more personality, in my opinion. Im gonna leave it there see how it develops over the coming years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, they quite obviously are logos sredetsfan. Sony's logo is a logo much like Sochi's. Nike's logo is a logo more like London's. Just because there's no running man, doesn't mean they don't define what the Games stand for in each case.

I know what you mean, however, the sony logo can stand alone, you can see it (and it alone) on the bottom of a LCD TV. Nike has the "swoosh" symbol and it can stand alone (as we all know :rolleyes: ). However in London's and Sochi's case you NEVER see the logo "standing alone".

In london's case you see the infill of the shape in different colors or the britsh flag or random pictures as the background, u rearly see the original version that came out a few years back (i think it had 4 different color versions).... even your gamesbid avatar is a random color... green, not the pink (or whatever else) the organizing comittee might be using at the moment. Now, that's fine, that's the idea....

In sochi's case, when you go online, you never see the logo by itself... you awlays have those blue triangles. On the helmet, on the building, on shoes. So is the logo: "sochi.ru 2014", or the triangles?

Now every host has a "look", in beijing's case it was the "asian colors swirls". And it too was eveywhere, on buildings etc. HOWEVER, at the end of the day, when i go to mcdonalds all i saw was the beijing logo in white against the red of the mcdonalds cup without the "asian clolrs swirl". If that was London or Sochi's case McDonalds would in effect be forced to make its own fill for Londons's logo, and maybe include the trianles in Sochi's case.

Bottom line, im not saying that they are not logos, i'm jsut saying, that (in effect), they are not THE logos's of the games. there is a difference.

I'm overthinking this.... lol :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
To me Londo's "logo" and Sochi's "logo" are not logos. They are simply a "frame" that will define the other artistic componets of the olympic look. There is nothing wrong with that... its just htat they need to stop calling them "logos".... LOL :blink::lol:

So you think if I type SOCHI with these typefaces below, I'll be transmitting exactly the same feeling?

SOCHI

SOCHI

SOCHI

I wouldn't dare to call typefaces only "frames" or "shapes"... You would be throwing years of hard work and centuries history of typedesign in the rubbish.

And I also think you may have the wrong idea of a logo. A proper logo isn't ever intended to be used alone and comunicate all you need to know about a subject. It is only a tool in the usage of a brand.

The crystals are also a part/tool of the brand and it's very common to use support images in the construction of a brand, as well as the correct usage of imagens, colours, typefaces, materials, the way the employees answer the phone, the interior and exterior of the offices, etc.

It's too soon to say if Sochi will live up for the challenge, but it's even sooner to dismiss their effort only because they designed an all-type logo...

Link to post
Share on other sites
So you think if I type SOCHI with these typefaces below, I'll be transmitting exactly the same feeling?

SOCHI

SOCHI

SOCHI

I wouldn't dare to call typefaces only "frames" or "shapes"... You would be throwing years of hard work and centuries history of typedesign in the rubbish.

And I also think you may have the wrong idea of a logo. A proper logo isn't ever intended to be used alone and comunicate all you need to know about a subject. It is only a tool in the usage of a brand.

The crystals are also a part/tool of the brand and it's very common to use support images in the construction of a brand, as well as the correct usage of imagens, colours, typefaces, materials, the way the employees answer the phone, the interior and exterior of the offices, etc.

It's too soon to say if Sochi will live up for the challenge, but it's even sooner to dismiss their effort only because they designed an all-type logo...

EXACTLY! those are three unique and different LOGOS! They all transmit different feelings/moods.

so in london's case, changing the color from pink to green, to a backdrop of the british flag... are all three (3) different logo's.

So, all i'm saying is (like in my second post)... that London (and Sochi) do not have A logo, they have logoS.... thereby they dont have A logo, they have A BRAND.

My entire point is jsut that. These games do not have logos, they have BRANDS! there is a difference. And, im sure, the designers know they made a brand, while the organizing committees and even the IOC, continue to use the term LOGO, when the idea behind them is not a "logo" but a "brand".

Link to post
Share on other sites

It`s not because something is different that it's innovative..... Sochi logo isnt innovative at all but I agree it will serve the purpose to brand the games... Still think the best logo are the one of Torino and Vancouver. Torino is visually my favorite one... I felt in love right away. Vancouver is also a really gr8 story telling... I used to work in a giftshop and ever since everybody from around the world (and even canadians) what to buy an inukshuk. If we go back to Sochi.... it`s nice, it`s ok.... but doesnt tell me anything... it`s not appelling... but a logo is just a way to brand something and of course it will. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
EXACTLY! those are three unique and different LOGOS! They all transmit different feelings/moods.

so in london's case, changing the color from pink to green, to a backdrop of the british flag... are all three (3) different logo's.

So, all i'm saying is (like in my second post)... that London (and Sochi) do not have A logo, they have logoS.... thereby they dont have A logo, they have A BRAND.

My entire point is jsut that. These games do not have logos, they have BRANDS! there is a difference. And, im sure, the designers know they made a brand, while the organizing committees and even the IOC, continue to use the term LOGO, when the idea behind them is not a "logo" but a "brand".

I do think they have a logo, but I agree that they put emphasis in the whole brand experience.

I believe every organization should do the same, no matter how "bold and strong" their logos are...

Link to post
Share on other sites
so in london's case, changing the color from pink to green, to a backdrop of the british flag... are all three (3) different logo's.

It is possible to have a "mutant" logo, as long as there's something to hold all the "shapes" together... Sometimes a colour, sometimes a shape, sometimes a kind of shape, a portion, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Congratulations London! You're finally no longer saddled with the worst logo of all time.

Piece of utter crap!

Please get off that fence, stop beating around the bush, and tell us what you really think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what is this trend in logos lately? Vancouver, London, Munich's bid one, and now Sochi. Forget about choosing logos that people might actually like, it's all about provoking reactions and emotions. And dislike seems to be an easier reaction for the designers to want to provoke than producing anything that might, gasp, actually be popular!

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, what is this trend in logos lately? Vancouver, London, Munich's bid one, and now Sochi. Forget about choosing logos that people might actually like, it's all about provoking reactions and emotions. And dislike seems to be an easier reaction for the designers to want to provoke than producing anything that might, gasp, actually be popular!

But the logos you mention are not necessarily unpopular. Nothing in life will be universally liked anyway - especially things in the art sector where people will always have a wide variety of opinions.

Munich's logo is only a bid logo and graphically, very sophisticated. Remember, the public chose that logo so your assertion that no-one likes it is not really true. I personally think it is brilliant.

London's logo, regardless of your own personal views was the most advanced logo produced for a Summer games in what it can do. It wasn't different just for the sake of it. Wolf Ollins, the worlds biggest branding agency, created a logo which was dynamic, could be animated, worked on digital platforms and said something of the nature of London without being a nationalistic emblem.

Sochi's logo continues the trend started by London. In the year 2014 the world will continue in it's use of computers. It is somewhat by necessity that Sochi used a domain name as part of it's logo. It's also essential that an unknown city is visible and not obscure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, what is this trend in logos lately? Vancouver, London, Munich's bid one, and now Sochi. Forget about choosing logos that people might actually like, it's all about provoking reactions and emotions. And dislike seems to be an easier reaction for the designers to want to provoke than producing anything that might, gasp, actually be popular!

I disagree with this.

I think, to be fair, with regard to London, LOCOG were taken aback by the reaction. I don't think it was designed to provoke so much as to be new and fresh and unlike any other Olympic logo before. The designers, and indeed London 2012, would have wanted it to be liked from the off.

The concept wasn't well explained though, and then of course a day later stories were doing the rounds about people having epileptic fits at one of the animations. London's was an example of how not to launch a logo. All the gumpf about it being the most recognised Olympic brand after its first few months etc. was putting gloss and spin on a poor launch. I'm sure that wasn't really what the designers or LOCOG were looking for. But it was their own fault. They launched a logo that was said to be revolutionary and interactive, and then all they did afterwards was stick low-res static versions of it on their literature and website. The interactivity and flexibility should have been implemented from Day 1 - an interactive Flash website especially for the logo launch day, where users could play with the logo, its infills, move it around, break it apart etc. etc. would have been an obvious marketing ploy; but nothing even close to that was done.

Fast forward two and a half years and I now hear a lot of people say that they like it after having been swept up by the outright hostilty that greeted it at its launch. That's good, but it doesn't excuse the launch.

As for Sochi, I don't think that is designed to provoke either. If anything, it's too bland to provoke and is trying to be all things to all people (and some might argue ultimately pleasing nobody, though I wouldn't say that as I rather like it).

Vancouver's I don't like, but provocative, nah? It's a continuation of Barcelona's, Sydney's, Beijing's theme and isn't aesthetically provocative. Politically provocative it may be for a few, but that's a different kettle of fish. For me, it's just a bad logo. In some ways I wish it were provocative; that might have made it more interesting to look at!

Munich's bid logo isn't designed to provoke either. It's just bad design pure and simple, but it's only a bid logo so that's forgivable to an extent.

-----

I like London's and Sochi's logos and dislike Vancouver's and Munich's but I don't think any of them were designed to produce shock and negativity to be honest. The fact that they're all so different from each other yet none of them have won universal appeal shows how difficult this sort of thing is for designers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree with this.

I think, to be fair, with regard to London, LOCOG were taken aback by the reaction. I don't think it was designed to provoke so much as to be new and fresh and unlike any other Olympic logo before. The designers, and indeed London 2012, would have wanted it to be liked from the off.

The concept wasn't well explained though, and then of course a day later stories were doing the rounds about people having epileptic fits at one of the animations. London's was an example of how not to launch a logo. All the gumpf about it being the most recognised Olympic brand after its first few months etc. was putting gloss and spin on a poor launch. I'm sure that wasn't really what the designers or LOCOG were looking for. But it was their own fault. They launched a logo that was said to be revolutionary and interactive, and then all they did afterwards was stick low-res static versions of it on their literature and website. The interactivity and flexibility should have been implemented from Day 1 - an interactive Flash website especially for the logo launch day, where users could play with the logo, its infills, move it around, break it apart etc. etc. would have been an obvious marketing ploy; but nothing even close to that was done.

Fast forward two and a half years and I now hear a lot of people say that they like it after having been swept up by the outright hostilty that greeted it at its launch. That's good, but it doesn't excuse the launch.

As for Sochi, I don't think that is designed to provoke either. If anything, it's too bland to provoke and is trying to be all things to all be people (and some might argue ultimately pleasing nobody, though I wouldn't say that as I rather like it).

Vancouver's I don't like, but provocative, nah? It's a continuation of Barcelona's, Sydney's, Beijing's theme and isn't aesthetically provocative. Politically provocative it may be for a few, but that's a different kettle of fish. For me, it's just a bad logo. In some ways I wish it were provocative; that might have made it more interesting to look at!

Munich's bid logo isn't designed to provoke either. It's just bad design pure and simple, but it's a bid logo so that's forgivable to an extent.

-----

I like London's and Sochi's logos and dislike Vancouver's and Munich's but I don't think any of them were designed to produce shock and negativity to be honest.

I was being flippant more than serious.

Quite honestly, though ...

I'm starting to warm to London's logo - as it fits in with the hints we've seen of the "look". I still don't think it still ever stands on its own, though. It only works with in-fills and in context.

I agree, Vancouver's is sort of the last of a family going back to the 90s. What may have been cutting edge and controversial for Barcelona (and I do remember it was just as controversial in its day then as london's was more recently), is now just passe.

Sochi is just soooo bland. Even more so than London's, it just doesn't seem to stir anything - like or dislike - without an in-fill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A brand isn't really about design or graphics. A brand is about an emotional experience or attachment or relationship with a particular entity. The graphics can help push the emotion, but they do not define it. Sochi 2014 and London 2012 both had brands long before designers tried to articulate it into a graphic element - set by the people who follow the organization of these games. The graphic is just the OCOG's attempt to show how they view themselves or what they want the games to project to the rest of the world. But that isn't the complete brand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what view of itself Sochi wanted to represent with this. The idea of only using words/letters isn't altogether a bad one, but these just don't say anything. And to be honest, I think the whole talk of the "sochi" and "2014" reflection and "Hi14" are people looking too much into it. It is what it is - "sochi.ru 2014." That's what every day average folks will see when they get exposed to it for a few seconds as they walk by a poster or see it on tv or on their computers - they won't bother examining how the letters somehow curve into each other, how they reflect, or any other interpretation.

And that gradient-crazy triangle motif is pretty much the same thing as any generic snow crystal logo. Cold and pointy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...