I've been very surprise with many things about the London Olympics particularly in the field that I "know" a bit more, I mean, branding, advertising, etc...
Things like the infamous "London Brand Police" are just an example of how silly brand protectionism can be. I read those dreadful stories such as the couple who were not allowed to enter into the stadium because they were wearing t-shirts from a sports brand that was not a sponsor, or those who were told to empty their crisps into plastic bags so they did not inadvertantly advertise brands which aren't sponsoring the games, and I just feel a deep disappointment about what has become of the Olympics: A massive branding circus!
The protagonists of all this show are some guys called LOCOG, who are in charge of all what has to do with olympics as far as I know, including the fight against "brandalism", the design of the 2012 games logo and last but not least important, the cute mascot: Wenlock.
Ohh yeah! The 2012 Olympics got a mascot! However, has been on fire for its undoubtedly resemblance to a Penis!
Obviously, LOGOG, refused such a calumny for the sake of the good image of the Olympics (and theirs of course). According to Mark Ritson* of Marketing Week the EMR (A firm of Marketing and Research) revealed that the 49% of marketing professionals in England approved Wenlock. Indeed, 30% of the sample actually preferred the new mascot to the Olympic logo. Very odd, coming from marketing proffesionals. Anyway is my humble point of view.
My questions are now:
- Is it worth all that commercialism of the London games?
- Does the 2012 London Olympics Mascot really looks like a penis?
Good night
.png "English"){kind=small}
Posts
