Chicago 2016 logo nixed

chicago2016nixed.jpgRegardless of whether or not we think Chicago’s Olympic bid would be good for the city, I think we all agreed that the logo looked pretty good (heck, it even looked good as a bike). Well, the International Olympic Committee has nixed the logo, because bidding cities can’t use Olympic imagery… in their Olympic bids. Right. I guess we already knew that the IOC were jerks.

17 Comments so far

  1. Chicago 2016 (unregistered) on May 17th, 2007 @ 8:13 am

    Well, if the IOC rules were around before the Chicago 2016 bid, I think it’s the local committee’s responsible to know about them.

    It essentially seems as if:
    1) Chicago 2016 could care less about the rules
    2) Chicago 2016 didn’t expect to win the U.S. bid in the first place, and was like, “Oh, we won. Now what?”

    And the term “Olympics” is trademarked, just like anything else. I’m surprised that, for a for-profit, the Improv Olympics wouldn’t even think that the term may have been property of the IOC. That’s just stupid. If they were a 101(c)(3), it would be different.


  2. Dan Telfer (unregistered) on May 17th, 2007 @ 9:13 am

    The IOC is a creepy maniacal juggernaut, sure. The only people who claim copyright ownership of a thousands-year old event are egotistical rich people (worse than improv theaters they have crushed mom and pop restaurants under their heel).

    But all that aside, I couldn’t believe Chicago was so incompetent that they ignored the rules when they commissioned that logo. I mean yeah, it looks cool, but if we’re going to kiss the ass of one of the most money hungry machines in the universe, we have to read the fine print.


  3. Fuzzy (unregistered) on May 17th, 2007 @ 9:47 am

    > And the term “Olympics” is trademarked, just like anything else

    A trademark isn’t a magic ‘nobody else can ever use this word’ spell. Apple Computers, for example, can’t stop me from opening (a real example) a children’s clothing store called “The Red Apple”. Apple Computer has a trademark on the word Apple for computers and home electronics, not children’s clothing nor hundreds of other kinds of goods and services.

    The IOC has a trademark on Olympics for sporting events — there might be reasonable confusion whether my 5K, say, was an official IOC event if I tried to call it the Edgwater Olympics 5K. But no reasonable person would assume that the ImprovOlympic was an actual IOC-sponsored venue. They’re bullies, plain and simple.


  4. Chicago 2016 (unregistered) on May 17th, 2007 @ 9:48 am

    Yeah, and if we can’t read the fine print, we’re not getting the games. It’s that simple, I think.

    But the Chicago 2016 committee has been messing up alot lately. Did you hear about this one?


  5. Chicago 2016 (unregistered) on May 17th, 2007 @ 9:51 am

    While I’m not pro-IOC in any way, I think the Chicago 2016 committee is incompetent. That’s all.


  6. Dan Telfer (unregistered) on May 17th, 2007 @ 10:17 am

    I completely agree!

    Everyone involved in this fiasco is incompetent and self-involved. Except for the poor graphic designer, who everyone is probably dumping some healthy blame on and who designed a very pretty logo. Let’s hope in the end they get some rightful healthy publicity.


  7. Chicago 2016 (unregistered) on May 17th, 2007 @ 11:31 am

    Here, here. Nice site, Dan.


  8. Dave! (unregistered) on May 17th, 2007 @ 12:15 pm

    I don’t think it’s a “fiasco” at all or that they necessarily ignored the rules/were incompetent.

    The Chicago Committee was focused first on winning the *U.S.* bid, which they *did*. How is that incompetent??! They had no obligation to follow the IOC rules at that point and the campaign waged to win the U.S. Olympic Committee bid is undoubtedly different than what it will take to win the international bid. Know your audience.

    So now, they have to comply with the IOC rules, and I don’t see any reason why they can’t. Sure, it was a cool logo–it helped win the U.S. bid. Now, it’s on to the next phase and it needs a different logo. B.F.D.


  9. Chicago 2016 (unregistered) on May 17th, 2007 @ 1:02 pm

    Yeah, but why bother with having to make two separate logos? Did they not even know about the rule in the first place? If not, it’s negligence on their part.

    I mean, we know Chicago 2016 couldn’t care less about the city’s residents. Now they have to waste thousands of dollars to create this new logo. If anything, this drains money from the coffers quicker than it would’ve normally.

    But who cares if Joe Taxpayer will eventually pick up the bill? We’re not getting the Olympics anyway.


  10. Dan Telfer (unregistered) on May 17th, 2007 @ 1:15 pm

    Yeah, I guess I should qualify with the perspective-killing addendum that I don’t really want the Olympics here.

    I’m not going to like, petition against it or anything, but I agree that our city is terribly mismanaging its money for the short-term fame.

    I mean, the CTA is about to implode into a blackhole of bum-piss and ruin. We had a huge all night festival in the Loop and the Loop responded by shutting itself down. Our schools are terrifying. If we invite millions of tourists here, I predict a high likelihood of us suffering Detroitesque consequences. I’m a bitter whiney jerkface, but that’s why I’m so leery of the City not having a consistent strategy for this stuff.


  11. jack (unregistered) on May 17th, 2007 @ 1:18 pm

    The Chicago committee was not ignoring the rule nor was it unaware of the rules. They submitted the logo to be reviewed by the IOC for compliance with the rules. This seems to be a standard practice of many cities. They did not get a ruling from the IOC until last week at which point they made it public that they have to change the logo. The logo served its purpose to help win the US bid and there are no obligations to the IOC until the city actual submitted to be considered as a site for the games which it could not do until recently.
    It is too bad the IOC will not allow it as it was a great logo. Surprisingly simple and sleek. I am worried about the disaster of a logo that is sure to follow.


  12. Chicago 2016 (unregistered) on May 17th, 2007 @ 2:02 pm

    Dan –

    I absolutely agree, but I’m considering both sides of the coin. If it could actually work, yeah. I’m from Manhattan, New York, and we didn’t want the games there, either.

    And I haven’t seen anything from Chicago 2016 that would inspire me to change my mind about the Games.


  13. Chicago 2016 (unregistered) on May 17th, 2007 @ 2:03 pm

    Dan –

    I absolutely agree, but I’m considering both sides of the coin. If it could actually work, yeah. I’m from Manhattan, New York, and we didn’t want the games there, either.

    And I haven’t seen anything from Chicago 2016 that would inspire me to change my mind about the Games.


  14. Fuzzy (unregistered) on May 17th, 2007 @ 4:47 pm

    Then, Daniel, I’m confused as to why you sign yourself “Chicago 2016” here and elsewhere? It leads one to assume you’re supporting bringing the games to Chicago.


  15. Chicago 2016 (unregistered) on May 18th, 2007 @ 6:16 am

    My friend, it’s called branding. I carry and link to the most news – pretty much anywhere – about the Chicago 2016 bid on my site, DanielHonigman.com. I received a copy of a study commissioned by the London Assembly about the impact of London 2012, and I’ll be interviewing the author of that study.

    But, regardless of my personal opinions, I stay balanced in my coverage. If the committee does something good, I’ll write about that. Mainly, however, I’ve been disappointed (or glad, not sure which).

    If you check out Google, you’ll see that I’m ranked above most major Chicago news outlets, ranked only behind Chicago2016.org, Wikipedia and the Tribune. I think this is a good start.


  16. Joe R (unregistered) on May 18th, 2007 @ 10:28 pm

    Guys, first task at hand now is to come up with a new logo yeah? How about either of these…

    http://www.forsytemedia.com/2016


  17. Chicago 2016 (unregistered) on May 19th, 2007 @ 8:42 am

    The Lake logo is kind of cool.



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.