Often the topic of heated debate, the Olympic logo and identity system is an important component of the way we perceive The Games. This year the Vancouver 2010 arena & spatial design is all about vivid, saturated blues and greens, graphic textures, and wavy, tentacle-like forms that intertwine and surround a figure performing the sport at hand. On the other hand, the Vancouver 2010 logo is done in bright, primary hues and speaks to the Inuit culture of the Canadian Arctic.

Named Ilanaaq, the symbol is a graphic, modern representation of the inukshuk – stacked rock forms that native tribes built to provide landmarks and direction throughout the Canadian landscape. Ilanaaq means “friend,” so the logo is meant to be “a friend that warmly welcomes the people of the world with open arms every day,” according to the official website of the Vancouver Games.

Um, what? OK, so I can absolutely see the resemblance between this Ilanaaq character and the inukshuk sculptures, and the rationale for this logo is totally valid. The host city should absolutely celebrate the culture of its country – that’s what The Olympics are all about! – pride in your country and the fact that you are going to kick your competitor’s ass in the name of [insert country here].

That being said, there is a very poor connection between this culture-rich mark and the rest of the Olympic identity system. What’s with the complete switch in style and the void-of-meaning free-flowing blue & green shapes that overshadow the logo? Sure, the friend-focus of the logo is a little cheesy (but who doesn’t love cheese!?), and it’s head kind of looks like a green Pac-Man (I wish I could take credit for that, but I read it here: http://www.topnews.in/usa/vancouver-2010-olympic-logo-under-eye-storm-23564) but at least there’s some relevant meaning behind it!

Don’t get me wrong; the blue and green designs are beautiful to look at, and there is obviously a nice big maple leaf reference in the poster artwork, but that’s it. Boo. I have to agree with Art museum curator David Ross, who pointed out on The Colbert Report that the 2010 Olympics graphic identity contains no strong reference to sports, history, or the spirit of competition. It is completely irrelevant to what it is meant to represent.
read the full story...

We get it. Brands change. Sometimes because they have to, sometimes not. Brands change up their advertising, target audiences, CMO’s and even their corporate headquarters. But something about MTV officially removing ‘Music Television’ from their logo is bittersweet. For those of us who grew up in the first MTV generation,  gone are the days of staying up until midnight to watch the latest video on the family TV. Now we can watch a music video as many times, at any hour and in any location we want with a press of a cellphone or laptop.

According to MTV’s press release, the logo change was to further align itself with the Millenials audience and still stay relevant with its past, present and future. The change comes part of the channel’s ‘reinvention’ to stay current and cutting edge.

MTV should be commended for its effort to stay relevant in a TV environment that is highly competitive. Staying ahead of the pack is much easier than trying to catch up with it. And it’s not like MTV is completely omitting music videos or canceling the VMA’s. The logo is now inclusive of all channel content.

As much as we can appreciate a rowdy episode of “The Jersey Shore,” MTV will always be the pioneer brand that brought music videos into our homes.

Rock on MTV!