The second one I have a few problems with. The font is hard to read; it took me awhile to figure out the year 2014. Probably the biggest complaint I would have is the way that it is grouped together; it makes me think the url is sochi.ru and not sochi2014.ru. I feel the rings were thrown in there as an afterthought, but in this case it seems to work. I like that it has separate graphic elements (crystals); I think that was very creative.

Is the message: Young Russians, come to Sochi?
(Big bucks are not in the event.)

Or is it: World, remember Russia and come some time soon?
(Big bucks are in TV viewers and future tourism.)

Money is the name of the game, including the Olympic games.

Take your pick.

I feel the Interbrand choice of a heavy typeface overpowers and suffocates the Olympic rings. I simply cannot relate the heavy-equipment typeface with the grace and finesse — the movement — of winter sport. It took me a long time to recognize that “2014″ was not a misspelled reflection of Sochi. I supposed I anticipated an icy reflection, being that the logo was of an Olympic winter games theme. I do like the ice crystals — but not the equilateral triangles (I know they work with the industrial typeface). Ice crystals and frost played a significant role in the Vancouver Olympic media coverage — they provided a classy, relevant, neutral and non-country-specific backdrop for scores and news. I would have been embarrassed if everything had been overpowering red and white at Vancouver 2010. Instead, a pallet of blues, greens and white were offered . . . I guess that’s one of my major issues with the Interbrand logo. It lacks the sensitivity required of a good host. The Transformer Studio may have used feathers — but the Interbrand logo is the one that comes off as the overpowering peacock. It lacks cultural significance and grace and hugely misses the youth target, in my opinion. I can’t imagine grade-school children relating to the Interbrand logo as inspiration. My home is currently littered with child-scrawled paper flags mounted on straws that feature the Vancouver 2010 Inukshuk (stone-man) and the Olympic rings. Now a firebird feather and fire — that is something youth can relate to and recreate, with the added beauty of being culturally significant. What an opportunity to portray cultural pride to the world and foster it in the next generation of Olympic candidates. I can’t help but take it further and imagine a proud Russian audience waving firebird feathers in red, green, blue, and yellow, and their honoured guests bringing home the same feathers as a beautiful, relevant souvenir of time spent in Russia.

What a loss.

The question is what each logo says — because they were designed and chosen not on the grounds of their beauty, but because of the message they are meant to convey.

Transformer’s logo is colourful, vibrant, very humane. It says a lot about Russia and the people living there. Besides, it insightfully incorporates Olympic symbols and colours with the spirit of Russia. I think it was made for the public. And that’s where Transformer were wrong.

The Interbrand logo is at the other end of the spectrum (again, not in terms of beauty). Predominant colour is cold, and its letters are heavy and un-human (though I wouldn’t say they look digital). Olympic symbol is belittled. That’s a logo that loudly says INSTITUTION. The accent is not on the event, nor is it on the gathering of people or even on Russia as a host. The accent is on the Russian state. It says SIZE is MIGHT. Let’s not forget who gets to choose it, after all. Interbrand knew their customer.

Modern attention span does not allow for this “heart-warming” tale to be told, and there is nothing within its design that encourages people to find out more.

It is almost too clever — something that we as designers must learn to curtail.

Like a joke, if you have to explain it, it didn’t work.

The winning design, although to me not aesthetically appealing, conveys much more information in the first glance than you might expect.

For instance, Sochi is in Russia. Would anyone even know that from the first logo? All too often we assume the viewer has knowledge, but in this case how much does the wider world even know about Russia?

As for the crystals, I think they are genius. This one design element is so incredibly flexible, and if used correctly, it can create an association with the logo and the event that can be used literally anywhere.

Anyway, these are my thoughts. Not conventional I know, but convention is what holds us back at times.

.ru => .ru coming?

The world’s shortest invitation :-)