I gathered some thoughts from the designer community on the visual identity for Chicago’s Candidate City status for the 2016 Olympics. The points made constituted a tidy list for marketers and designers to consider (read: argue about) when they formulate a logo. Brand and visual identity analysis of the Chicago Olympic logo:

Are the elements in the symbol gratuitous or do they mean something? Does it make direct reference to the subject’s established visual language? The new star is not gratuitous, as it is the shape of the stars that adorn the official flag of the city of Chicago.

Designers say a logo needs to use striking, highly visible and recognizable identifiers and that it should not need lots of explanation to give it value, to show its meaning. Chicago’s first Olympic logo shows the city as a flame to come from the torch. In the flame, the colors need no explanation because they were inside shapes that clearly referenced known things (a torch, a flame, a city). In the second logo, some say that unless you know that the six-point star is featured on the city flag, it has no recognizable value. The average citizen often can’t identify their own city flag. However, what’s effective about the star is that it is a universally understood symbol.

Is the logo unique? Does it have local/global distinction? Does the logo stand out vis-a-vis competitors? Chicago’s skyline and wind are unique. But they have been dispensed with in the new version. They were replaced by a star, which is a generic symbol that carries many connotations. However, some say this is appropriate to the task of communicating victory, accomplishment, and wonder.

Does the symbol communicate on a visceral level? Some believe the star does, by the power of a familiar shape. The sketch marks on the old one show action and energy, a good quality to have considering the athletic nature of the event.

Does the logo use metaphor? The skyline seen in the old logo’s flame could represent how Chicago rose out of the ashes of a fire, making reference to the city’s history.

Is the logo balanced, strong, bold, clean, concrete, emotional, memorable, rich in color and flexible in application? One designer feels the green represents Chicago’s sustainability.

Does it work as a mark and an idea? Does the symbol work for its purpose, within its context, and for its audiences? This logo needs to work for an event far into the future. What’s au courant now may not be so striking and popular in the future. Or, the style may come back. Who knows? The purpose is to package the city’s “fitness” (Olympic and otherwise) for holding the games. So, perhaps these logos are more for selection committees than citizens. The first logo was suitable for competing within the country (those in the US are more likely to recognize the shape of the Sears tower), and after Chicago won the US bid, the new logo competes more in a larger, global context.

Is the symbol a strong idea but lacking in final execution?

Article Tags: chicago | Design | Identity | logo | Olympics
Filed under: Design, Visual Identity