PyeongChang 2018 Emblem Unveiling

[Athensfan]

With Olympics logos, no. Sponsors, broadcasters etc. are all on multi-games deals. They buy into the rings, they buy into the second most valuable international brand after Apple (http://www.marketingmag.com.au/news/olympics-jumps-to-second-most-valuable-brand-only-beaten-by-apple-16892/), and the same goes for domestic sponsors.

If the logo does its job, which all recent logos have done (and given the amount spent on them they ought to!), then that's grand. Everything else is in the eye of the beholder. Objective comparisons between Olympic logos are probably impossible.

Athensfan, I'm not sure this is really the thread for arguments about the merits of relativism. You say "a kindergartener's finger painting might as well be a Picasso". Well, yes, if you take things to extremes then the relativist argument looks absurd. What we're mostly comparing here though are logos created by one highly paid design agency vs logos created by another highly paid design agency. I'm with you, not oaky, in disliking this 2018 logo, but unlike you I liked London's and Sochi's. So where does that leave us?

Well first off, I don't think hiring a highly paid design agency insures one gets a quality product.

To evaluate a logo as "good" or "bad" one must determine criteria. These criteria can be somewhat mysterious, such as "does the logo express a unique thought or concept? Does the logo engender a positive emotional response in a majority of people?" The criteria can also be very practical "Will the logo reproduce effectively in single color applications?" The criteria can be somewhere in between "Does the logo represent the character and ambiance of the host nation? Does the logo convey the energy and atmosphere of winter sport?" They can be purely aesthetic "is the logo visually balanced? Does it have a focal point?"

The choice of criteria matters. And of course different criteria matter to different people.

Good design accomplishes work. It conveys meaning and creates an experience. The best design conveys the most powerful meaning and provides the most valuable experience.

I don't see PC's design succeeding with many of the criteria that I consider important. I don't see it accomplishing much work, conveying powerful meaning or providing a valuable experience. Therefore I think it's a design failure.

If someone likes PC's logo because it gives them a pleasant feeling, that's fine, but it doesn't make it good design.

[BTHarner]

I couldn't wait to get home today to read the reaction here at GB. I just knew the reaction was going to be generally negative. I'll admit that my impression at first glance was "what is that?". Then I read into the story behind it and I got more comfortable with it. It doesn't rank among the best logos, but it beats Sochi's website advertisement.

[BTHarner]

BTW, It's funny to see how many people around the web are getting PyeongChang confused with Pyongyang and are going beserk over the thought of North Korea hosting the Olympics.

[baron-pierreIV]

BTW, It's funny to see how many people around the web are getting PyeongChang confused with Pyongyang and are going beserk over the thought of North Korea hosting the Olympics.

Yeah, I don't really understand why that region chose to go with PC as their candidate name. It really was a stupid choice and gets even more farcical now with their choice of logo. See the clip I posted about North Koreans laughing at the folly of their compatriots in PY South!!

[Nacholympic]

Here we have some explanations oof the logo meaning said by the PC Commetee itself...

http://www.olympic.org/news/pyeongchang-2018-launches-official-emblem/196086

http://www.pyeongchang2018.org/horizon/eng/page/sub02/sub02_01.asp

[baron-pierreIV]

A good logo SHOULDN'T need to be explained.

[runningrings]

BTW, It's funny to see how many people around the web are getting PyeongChang confused with Pyongyang and are going beserk over the thought of North Korea hosting the Olympics.

This is I think its crazy they went out of their way to use the name of the county hosting the event, and not the nearest major city that is hosting the bulk of the indoor events - Gangneung. That in itself is unusual.

Gangneung would have worked well as the default host city. It would have been a similar set up to Nagano.

A good logo SHOULDN'T need to be explained.

Yes it should. There are elements not everyone would pick up on.

Would everyone who views the Turin logo see a Cathedral, and not a stylised snowflake? Or Utah's mineral elements in the 2002 logo? Many people around the world wouldn't know about those BC stone men from 2010? Beijing's running man actually being Chinese script? What about London's logo? Still foggy on that one.

Edited May 4, 2013 by runningrings

[Athensfan]

I think it's fine if explanation enhances and deepens one's appreciation of the logo, but it should still be able to make a strong favorable impact without a word of commentary.

[tikus_kecil]

As Asian, I think PC's logo is better than London and Sochi one, yeah the logo is too simple, but it has a lot of meanings in Korean,

[BABYLON]

Yuck!

Is that a word/letter? What is it? A horse? Are there any wild horses in/near that town?

[BABYLON]

Just read the description. No horses involved. For speakers of the native language in the host town itself, the logo does mean something and I actually think it's a good thing but can't really see any aesthetic elements in it.

[runningrings]

I think it's fine if explanation enhances and deepens one's appreciation of the logo, but it should still be able to make a strong favorable impact without a word of commentary.

Well, I might be alone, but it instantly did that for me - I have my comments watching the unveiling at the start of this thread to see my initial thoughts. I felt instantly intrigued by it, and curious - unlike Sochi and some other recent logos that didn't really give me that.

[Athensfan]

Well, I might be alone, but it instantly did that for me - I have my comments watching the unveiling at the start of this thread to see my initial thoughts. I felt instantly intrigued by it, and curious - unlike Sochi and some other recent logos that didn't really give me that.

Kudos on sticking to your guns. I get that you're sharing your genuine reaction. I've appreciated your posts and thoughtful commentary for years. I just disagree with you on this one.

[baron-pierreIV]

Yes it should. There are elements not everyone would pick up on.

Would everyone who views the Turin logo see a Cathedral, and not a stylised snowflake? Or Utah's mineral elements in the 2002 logo? Many people around the world wouldn't know about those BC stone men from 2010? Beijing's running man actually being Chinese script? What about London's logo? Still foggy on that one.

No, I never mistook Torino's logo for a stylised snowflake. Utah's mineral elements? Nope. It was a stylised desert snowflake and its 3 colors meant Culture, Courage and, I think, Contrast. Beijing's was just a noodle man. U're just,as usual,pretending to be different and difficult. U're probably the only one out of about 20 regulars here who likes that sh*t that PC pulled. They made their bed, let them lay on it.

[Rob.]

A logo doesn't have to mean anything; it could just convey a feeling or a dynamic. And even if it does mean something, that explanation doesn't have to be immediately obvious for it to be a good logo.

Some things need explaining because they might be outside the scope of our own experiences, and this is especially true when every two years we get a different logo from a different part of the world. If you didn't know what a boomerang was would that make Sydney's logo worse because you were the one who was ignorant of that culture? No, or at least I hope not.

But, what I would say is that a logo needs to work as a graphic EVEN IF you don't understand the explanation behind it. For me, this one just doesn't.

[Lord David]

I remembered that PyeongChang is hosting the 2013 Special Olympics Winter Games.

Here's a far superior logo!

[baron-pierreIV]

I remembered that PyeongChang is hosting the 2013 Special Olympics Winter Games.

Here's a far superior logo!

A saddle and a Tampax! But yeah, even that is better than the 2018 one.

[DarJoLe]

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.

[Rob.]

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.

Interesting point, funny nobody else has picked up on it. Out of interest, how much say and influence does the IOC have over logos and looks, both before launch and as the brands are developed?

[Faster]

I think the problem is, it doesn't show that it is a Winter Olympics, it lacks depth.

There is something oddly compelling to it.

To Rob, Athensfan and runningsrings who are you favourite artists?

[DarJoLe]

Interesting point, funny nobody else has picked up on it. Out of interest, how much say and influence does the IOC have over logos and looks, both before launch and as the brands are developed?

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.

[baron-pierreIV]

1. I think the problem is, it doesn't show that it is a Winter Olympics, it lacks depth.

2. There is something oddly compelling to it.

1. Exactly.

2. Yeah. It is ridiculously stupid. Like....are human beings this simple-minded? The human brain created the harmonious wholeness of the 5 rings which says a lot...and that is coupled with a few sticks which say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!! It is truly unfathomable.

[nykfan845]

I think the problem is, it doesn't show that it is a Winter Olympics, it lacks depth.

There is something oddly compelling to it.

To Rob, Athensfan and runningsrings who are you favourite artists?

Agreed.

It's kind of bland, but there is something to its simplicity. It's very Korean without being Korean, if you get what I mean.

A good logo SHOULDN'T need to be explained.

Incorrect.

[baron-pierreIV]

Interesting point, funny nobody else has picked up on it. Out of interest, how much say and influence does the IOC have over logos and looks, both before launch and as the brands are developed?

I asked same thing here - http://www.gamesbids.com/forums/topic/22610-pyeongchang-2018-emblem-unveiling/page-15

post #149.

Incorrect.

Disagree. It can be explained; but it should stand on its own, doing its job at first look. More detailed, obscure interpretations of it can come later.

Edited May 4, 2013 by baron-pierreIV

[Athensfan]

I actually think the predominance of white makes it feel very wintry, but there's nothing remotely athletic about it. The use of Olympuc colors doesn't bother me either.

What bothers me is that they say this design embodies "passion" and for the life of me I can't see that at all. It's quite the reverse. That does make me wonder what sort of Games these will be. Remember one of the concerns about South Korea was their lack of knowledge about winter sport and the lack of passionate spectators. This logo reflects no interest in winter sport and claims to be passionate when really it's sterile. I find both points worrying when I think about PC's biggest liabilities during the bid campaign.