skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I was recently listening to a British “design critic” on BBC News discuss the shockingly inferior designs of Olympic mascots since their use began at the 1972 Games in Germany. This led to a discussion of the latest egregious emblem developed for London 2012 (which surely will compete with Atlanta’s for the worst designed Olympic brand ever).
“The Olympic athletic ideal has been summed up as faster, higher, stronger. The mascot designs produced to represent that philosophy seem merely to be poorly executed, computer-generated, kitsch which is dimmer, dumber, crasser. I suggest we step back and take inspiration from the 5-rings concept which was simply and brilliantly executed.” (BBC News source)
Tragically, the person from the London design committee who approved their new mascot said it was primarily designed to get young people interested in the Olympic Games. (uhhhh.....and licensing cha ching?) I still find it surprising that so many people think “young people” are only attracted to low quality materials that are poorly designed! But then, junk food was first created for kids, too—though sadly, people keep eating it as adults--and look where is that is getting us!
Curious about the London 2012 mascot designs now?*
The design is credited to Wolff Olins Brand Consultants of London.
They charged £400,000 for the work.
A spokesperson from the agency indicated focus groups of children were used to get ideas for the logo designs (need we say more?).
"The children told us a number of things: they weren't that sold on furry animals and they actually wanted a story."
A segment of animated footage to promote the logo was said to have triggered seizures in a small number of people, prompting it to be removed from the Locog website.
*Source: BBC News and BBC Sport
Moral of this story:
We will keep fighting the good fight for high quality design and the integrity of “brand consulting” as a meaningful endeavor! Any time design steps on the worldwide stage, it deserves to be the best that can be achieved. (No offense intended to those who create by focus group.)
As we approach the day in America when we are reminded to be thankful for all we have, it seems fitting to also think about what brings true joy. Maggie earns her living waitressing in Brooklyn and has spent the last year battling cancer. Despite daily challenges, she reminds us that inspiration and joy can be, must be, found in the most ordinary of things. In the Everyday. The New York Times has produced a beautiful series: One in Eight Million.
Take a walk. Experience silence. Think. Get inspired. You’re One in 308,000,000.
Happy Thanksgiving America.
*U.S. National population as of November 9, 2009 per Census Bureau: 307,895,650
Estimated World Population as of November 1, 2009, per Census Bureau: 6,794,108,554
The good news is there is never a recession on creativity. Limitation can enhance innovation as it inspires Innovators to push to the next level. Innovation is the key driver of productivity, and as every good B-school student is taught, it is increases in productivity that drive economic growth.
But as much as B-schools and news outlets try to make economics oh so scientific, at a gut-level it is likely most of us know that the ability to “increase productivity” really boils down to the the best and brightest among us putting on their thinking caps and, well....innovating. (that's what the term" jobless recovery" means in real life.....people actually making things happen.....finding/being the one that produces X2, X5, X10!)
So my vote is to give the entrepreneurial thinkers of this world all the support and freedom (and compensation) they need to start making things happen again. Some people seem to think too much innovation got us into this mess, so they want to control it like water (stagnating) in a dam. But, let’s be honest, true Innovators just aren’t that motivated if leashed....give them the ability to run, and they’ll lead everyone who follows to the promised land....but restrict innovation.....hmmmm, where have we heard this before.....Who is John Galt? (Yes, the answer is on the Internet! But we won't find Mr. Galt social networking.) ~ Karen Dacus
It’s a well known fact, companies get more bang for their marketing buck by using smaller creative firms. You can bet small businesses that have lasted and thrived, know how to run efficiently and are able to pass the savings on to their clients.
Large agencies by nature have more waste, higher overhead, higher salaries and tax requirements and, thus, have to charge more while providing less. Every client a boutique firm takes on is critical, so each customer receives better service and faster response time. The actual number of people working on a given account is typically the same regardless of the size of the agency. (Larger agencies take on more accounts, thus need more people overall. A boutique firm typically comes up with more innovative ideas because they’re creative mavericks by nature. They own the firm, they’re taking the risk, they have to be the best. To stay innovative small firms are constantly on the move, highly flexible, always gathering the latest information and are typically owned and run by more entrepreneurial minded individuals. This attitude of innovation rubs off on the firm’s staff and is ingrained in the culture. Finally, with a boutique firm, the leaders and owners are available and accountable. They won’t be downsized next month! ~ Karen Dacus
Not sure if of you followed this year’s US Open Tennis championship. I happened to catch a bad cold and spent a long weekend glued to the set. Anyone who pays attention to such things knows that Roger Federer has dominated men’s tennis for the past few years.
So, last year, after several years of shock and awe as the most dominant tennis player of all time, Roger actually lost his number one status. Was he losing his edge? Getting too old? Burning out? Apparently not!
This year, once again, he won both the French Open and Wimbledon. He recaptured the number one ranking from the much younger Rafael Nadal. Suddenly Roger had another chance to trounce Sampras’ Grand Slam title record and be the first player in history to win the US Open six times in a row. The result: He lost the US Open final match to a 19 year old that many had never even heard of.
The point? Tennis is a metaphor for life. Talent is helpful. Dedication and persistence are key. And, in the end, those qualities may indeed get you ranked in the top 100, maybe even the top 10. But, the ability to be Numero Uno seems to be amazingly mental. Mental strength, mental fortitude, the mental belief that you are worth it, the deep mental faith that you will win. Even a super athlete like Roger Federer, whom many deem to be the best tennis player of all time, can lose to an unknown 19 year old if he stops believing, loses interest and loses focus in even one set of a five set match. It never really felt like Roger’s opponent won the match; it seemed much more like Roger beat himself on the mental court.
Can the Fed Express rise again? You bet. Because he is a champion; and true champions (like Roger, Tiger, Jordan) are able to change their game plan, and critically, they always find a way to believe in themselves again, even after a devastating defeat. How? A continuous loop seems to play in their minds: they see themselves hitting winners, they see themselves shattering records, they see themselves as champions again and again and again…Roger feels like a winner, he looks like a winner, he acts like a winner, he expects to win, and he will be ready when the next opportunity presents itself.
By the way, Roger hasn’t had an official coach in years. He coaches himself. And it doesn’t hurt that everyone agrees Roger is a winner in life, not just on the court. He truly appreciates art and design. He has excellent taste. He conducts himself with integrity. Even Anna Wintour idolizes him—and she is not easily impressed! ~ Karen Dacus
