I can understand the quest to be different – it is ever present in the creative industries.
Having managed creatives over a long period of time, intent on making their mark and impressing their peers with ground-breaking concepts, my overriding question was, and still is to this day, ‘Does this fully answer the requirements of the brief?’.
Being different or revolutionary for its own sake is not an option in the brand-creation business. A loose rationale justifying a graphic symbol will convince only those desperate to have something – anything – to take forward, unless it genuinely reflects the predetermined values that have, or should have been, set.
In brand-valuation terms, the ever-present five circles of the Olympic identity would surely appear in rankings alongside Coca-Cola and Shell, so I must ask why it was relegated to occupying a mere 9 per cent of the space allocated to the logotype. How small will it become when used on promotional material, for example?
If, as I suggest, the rings are worth many millions, shouldn’t the revolutionary design have harnessed this value instead of just accommodating it?
Had a junior designer presented this concept to me for consideration, my instant reaction would have been that it is clumsy, obscure and, more importantly, has given the wrong weight to the obvious ‘what? where? when?’ questions that this solution attempts to deliver. I would send the designer back to the file and tell them to re-read the brief, or maybe that’s where the problem lies.
John Slater, Chairman, Tsuko, Edinburgh EH7 6AJ