Talk:Wolff Olins

2012 Summer Olympics logo

weren't these the fools who did that ugly Olympic logo? surely that should be mentioned... as well as the fact it made me throw up.

Surely this is blatent advertising for a company??

Yes, it is and their own website directs you to it 87.194.152.110 (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Expansion of this page

Given that this page has only a 1.5 "completion" rating, how can we best include further information?

I propose creating a new section for "Recent Work" that uses factual info gathered only from verifiable news stories about their brand launches (i.e. FastCompany, Washington Post, AdWeek, Under Consideration -- not their "case studies" page which would be inherently biased).

Also, its great to include high profile criticisms of the company but for the sake of balanced reporting, it may be worth including some of the awards that they've won over the years (as gathered from verifiable sources).

Any thoughts?

Sbl19 (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wolff Olins reputation

{{Request edit}}

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

• Good start. I don't think Identity Works qualifies as a reliable source. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 21:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

As of now, the page doesn't seem to capture the wider reputation of Wolff Olins: "unorthodox" or "non-standard." Right now, the criticism section starts to get at the idea (saying that Wolff Olins has presented controversial work), but shouldn't we recognize that alot of the company's work is actually praised for being gamechanging/adventurous/boundary-pushing in a positive way as well? (see Tate, (RED), PwC).

• PwC: http://www.fastcodesign.com/1662367/pwcs-mighty-morphin-logo-adapts-to-web-print-and-beyond-video
• AOL: http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/alissa-walker/designerati/exclusive-interview-wolff-olins-and-aol-why-aols-new-brand-future

Sbl19 (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

What specific change are you looking to be made? Specific wording would be really helpful. I've disabled the Requested edit template for now, but feel free to re-enable it with specific info. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking something along these lines (below). This feels like more of a balanced look, acknowledging both the missteps and the award winning work created over the company's history. (i.e. PwC rebrand won the 2011 Brand New Award for Comprehensive Identity Program, AOL won bronze at the 2010 Cannes Lions, etc.)

Reputation:

Wolff Olins is known for pushing the boundaries of strategy and design, often presenting non-standard and bold work. In several instances, this has led to public debate and controversy. Its piper design for BT in 1991 attracted a great deal of opposition. The company was also responsible for the short-lived $110m (£75m) re-branding of PwC Consulting to Monday in 2002. The launch of the London 2012 logo in 2007 was met with widespread public derision. [21]

At the same time, much of Wolff Olins’ work has received praise for being cutting-edge and inventive. Rebrands for the likes of PwC, (RED) , AOL and Tate have been widely recognized for stretching the conventional concepts of branding. Sbl19 (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

References

An unbalanced advert?

I don't know if anyone agrees with me, but this article reads like an advert, completely unbalanced. For example, there is the glossing over certain controversies around the London 2012 Olympics branding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdabest (talk • contribs) 13:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)