Ooops

I've seen this somewhere before but I had no idea that it cost £14000! Bloody Hell!!

Very funny though

ohhh dear ohh dear what is this forum coming too, I blame wizely for this infection first with Helen now Mesa...it is funny though

Hahaha, that's well funny.

Yeah I posted this a while back in funny logos thread I made, never knew it cost £14K though...

It's only tax payers money so what do they care what it costs? Quite appropriate how it looks turned on it's side considering what these people do with our money... bunch of OGC's!

That's brilliant.

It would be funny, but the fact they spent 14k of taxpayers money on it dulls my sense of humour. People are struggling with bills and high taxes and they are just throwing the money away.

The government have a habit of wasting cash on rubbish logos. They made a right cock-up with that though

The logo cost £5 - it's the viral publicity that cost £13,995

lmao thats hilarious

I could make you an identical logo in paint for you!!

Ridiculous how much money that costs.

But quite a funny cock-up though

lmao. brilliant find!

lmao, the logo really worth 14,000 if turned on its side.

Now that you've showed us this, from now on i'll always laugh whenever i see the logo in what ever position they will made it.

 

and thanks, i haven't get any good laugh recently XD

That's nothing compared to this gem:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_spor...012/6718243.stm

 

The London 2012 logo.

 

 

The new design, which cost £400,000, has received a mixed response, but Lord Coe was adamant it put across the image and message that he wanted the London Games to deliver to the world.

 

And of course some diehard haters of that 'logo' came up with much better solutions for much less money (and time I'm sure):

 

 

Graphic designer Richard Voysey, who created the image with his brother Chris, said: "We discussed this together and the logo was roughly 20 minutes of our time as a first concept."

 

 

^^ My favorite alternative.

^^^^ I like the bottom one too.

 

Just goes to show the government are a bunch of wa**ers.

I like the first alternative one just because it is cleaver in the way it has 2012 spelling London. The second one is visually pleasing but something about breaking the Olympic rings seems wrong to me

Much better, isn't there a post about a flickr group talking about this?

lol hilarious

I actually like the London Olympic Logo. A Little bit too "nu rave", but it's certainly not as bad as all the publicity would suggest. And I'm pretty sure that 400k would not be the figure for the logo design solely, but also other promotional material / copy / layouts etc etc.

They need to spend £0 on marketing, quite clearly.

 

The logo cost £400,000 and took the best part of a year to be devised by brand consultants Wolff Olins.

http://www.etre.com/blog/2007/08/the_londo...c_logo_is_****/

 

(Replace the stars with the word S.H.I.T (no dots))

 

 

Seems that most people would agree with you.

All these scandals about how much the government pay for logo's are generally a bit miss-informed though. Like the 2012 olympics... I actually like the logo, but it's not just that that cost £400K, that will be for the complete branding of the olympic games, including lots of layouts for advertising material, logo placement guidelines etc. These tend to be thick guide booklets that do take a lot of time to put together. I know £400K is a huge sum, but then it's the olympic games, and if you were the influence of how the whole games were going to be promoted you'd want a fair amount for it.

I must say it took me a while to figure out the first logo turned on its side. my own mother had to tell me what I was missing lol. and the Olympic 2012 logo I just find terribly out of date and simply ugly. It reminds me of a McDonalds ad from the 80's