One possible strategy for logo design is to depict the name of the company with one minor graphic manipulation which serves to reinforce the company’s brand image or raison d’etre.  The added feature engages the viewer, encouraging extended cognitive processing of the brand name as the logo is noticed, examined, and appreciated.  The brand name is therefore stored more firmly in memory and is stored in conjunction with positive feelings generated via the appreciation of the graphic manipulation.  Some interesting examples follow:

     

        

             



                

      


           

        

      

               

                    

Note that the Staples example is particularly interesting in that the top of the "L" is not only shaped like the end of a staple, but the brand name is depicted at an incline, sybolizing the top bar of a stapler.

In previous posts, we have examined multiple meanings in brand names (for example, Subway, Global Releaf, and Jumpstart Automotive Media), and we have also examined logos which substitute a symbol for a letter or character in the brand name itself.  Here are some additional examples of the latter:

           

 

                

A similar technique is used in the brand symbols for logos, exclusive of the brand name itself.  This branding strategy creates images which can be viewed in two or more different ways, each having a different or complementary meaning.  Here are some interesting examples:

                   

 

                  

                

          
         

          

Three of these logos use this device fairly subtly.  Suite101 depicts a child formed from the numerals 1, 0, and 1.  Urban seed depicts a green leaf in a "U" (for Urban), which doubles as a flame in a lantern.  And Trickle Up is particularly ingenious as the "U" is pushed "up" by the pointer below it;  This pointer also doubles as the legs of a person with raised hands;  And these raised hands are, of course, also the letter "U" in "up".

On June 4^th, the London 2012 Olympic committee unveiled its new logo for the games, “a jagged emblem in bold colours designed to define the image of the Games in five years’ time…The logo, based on the date 2012 itself, comes in a series of bright shades of pink, blue, green and orange, and includes the signature five Olympic rings emblazoned onto the ‘0’. ‘This is the vision at the very heart of our brand,’ said London 2012 organising committee chief Sebastian Coe…’It will define the venues we build and the Games we hold, and act as a reminder of our promise to use the Olympic spirit to inspire everyone and reach out to young people around the world’ (“London 2012 Logo Unveiled”, The Peninsula, June 4, 2007).

Unfortunately, the logo so far has fallen well short of these objectives.  Most find the logo utterly unattractive and not representative of the host city.  It was even termed a “catastrophic mistake” by a member of the Olympic Committee.  Olympic fans were less polite.  Petitions were started calling for organizers to “scrap and change the ridiculous logo”.  A blogger for Guardian Unlimited wrote:  “There's some truly hideous sights in the world, but the newly revealed London 2012 logo tops them all.”  He went on to say that the logo closely resembles “the multicolored vomit sprayed across the capital's pavements at 3 a.m. on your average Sunday morning."  Although the logo appears to be targeted most directly at kids and teens, a survey by Q Research found that 68% of respondents in the 11 to 20 year-old age group actually stated that they “hate” the design.  Exacerbating the reaction to the logo was the fact that it cost $800,000 to develop.  However, there were also other even more serious problems with the logo.  Many felt that it resembles a swastika, arguably the single worst symbol in the history of civilization to associate with your brand, most especially the Olympics brand.  Moreover, the Olympic committee had to pull certain parts of its promotional video from their website because it was triggering fits in people suffering from epilepsy.  Although this range of negative reactions to the brand may possibly make it the worst (major) brand concept ever, the Olympic Committee intends to keep the logo, assuring the public that "it will grow on you".

Clearly the concept for this brand had gone in the wrong direction from the very start.  An Olympic logo should do one or more of the following:  1) It should in some way highlight a city landmark or area-specific historical cultural artifact, or herald one of the main positive characteristics of the host city, 2) it should embody the concept of the oneness of humankind, the representatives of which have come together in cooperation – putting aside all political, religious, racial, and social differences – to test each others' skills on a level playing field in an environment of peaceful, determined, and respectful competitiveness, and 3) it should represent the human spirit, the spirit of the games, and the pinnacle of human athletic achievement with sophistication, elegance, simplicity, and charisma.

The current logo fails on all three counts.  To illustrate some examples of effective Olympic logos, evaluate each of the following Olympic logos in the context of the above three criteria:

Note also that all of the candidate cities for the 2012 Olympics also created logos which fit one or more of the above criteria.   Most salient, London's pre-selection logo symbolizes unity with a very elegant design, meeting criterias two and three above.