What makes an Olympic emblem memorable – and does Brisbane’s new design fit the bill?

A cockatoo, a flame and a map all in a single symbol – now known as Brisbane 2032’s Olympic and Paralympic emblem. Is it saying too much, and who is it really speaking to?

The emblem was revealed last Friday, supposedly by accident, on the Brisbane 2032 YouTube channel, three days ahead of the official launch event.

It features a pink cockatoo crest, doubling as a torch, and loosely mirrors the shape of host state Queensland. The feathers are also grouped in bundles of three and two – a nod to “2032”.

A dramatic response is almost guaranteed for a new Olympics emblem. In this case, it has been generally positive.

Designing an emblem that represents a diverse nation on the world stage is a complicated task. And it’s not just about effective design; it’s about which version of Australia we choose to present.

Why Olympic emblems matter

Olympic emblems become the visual face of a host city and nation for years before the games begin. They appear on broadcast graphics, uniforms, merchandise, tickets, signage and marketing campaigns. And for international audiences, they provide an impression of the host country.

An effective Olympic emblem needs to work across languages, cultures and media. It must be original, and must represent place, identity and aspiration, while remaining simple enough to reproduce everywhere, from giant stadium screens to postage stamps.

This is a difficult balancing act, and not all countries pull it off.

In 2007, London was preparing to host the Olympics when its Keith Haring-esque 2012 emblem was launched. It came with a £400,000 price tag from brand consultancy Wolff Olins – quickly followed by a petition, signed by more than 48,000 people, appealing against it.

Some eight years later, Tokyo’s 2020 emblem was withdrawn due to plagiarism allegations. Belgian designer Olivier Debie accused Kenjiro Sano of copying his logo for the Théâtre de Liège. Sano denied this.

The replacement came from an open competition that received 14,599 entries.

But there have been some clear successes, too. Both the Mexico 1968 and Munich 1972 logos are regarded by experts as classics in Olympic emblem design.

Mexico’s designers embedded the figures “68” into the Olympic rings – and this pattern spread across the whole city.

For Munich 1972, German graphic designer Otl Aicher deliberately opted for a calm blue to distinguish the event from the 1936 Berlin Olympics.

Aicher also developed a range of intuitive sport pictograms for the 1972 games which are still replicated to this day.

Limits of a layered symbol

The Brisbane emblem was designed by a consortium of global agencies: VML and Verian (formerly Kantar Public) and Queensland First Nations consultancy BlackCard. BlackCard is the only Queensland firm in the team.

To Queensland audiences, the cockatoo crest will be easily recognisable. But the games will also draw potentially hundreds of thousands of international visitors.

Most of them are unlikely to recognise Queensland’s shape without additional context. Some may not even recognise the feathers as a cockatoo crest.

The emblem also seems to have some minor drawbacks or conflicting elements from a design perspective. For instance:

• it is officially a Brisbane event, yet Queensland occupies the visual centre of the design

• it isn’t immediately obvious the feathers are mirroring the shape of Queensland

• people may not understand the reference behind the feather grouping, or even notice it

• the pink cockatoo is primarily associated with Australia’s arid inland and is found as far east as Roma, rather than being strongly associated with Queensland’s “reefs, beaches and hinterland”

• the official story regarding the symbolism behind cockatoos – that they “carry First Nations significance, with strong connections to Country and a cultural role as messengers linking people to place, story and ceremony” – isn’t obvious in the emblem itself.

This doesn’t mean the emblem won’t work. It will be joined in the near future by pictograms and a mascot, which jointly will tell the whole story of Brisbane 2032’s branding success.

Sydney 2000 versus Brisbane 2032

Every Olympic host must decide what aspect of itself to foreground. The challenge is that one symbol is being asked to tell several different stories at once.

Compared to Sydney 2000’s “Millennium Man”, Brisbane’s 2032 emblem signals a shift in how Australia wishes to present itself to the world.

Sydney’s emblem used iconic landmarks and sport to tell a simple, unmistakably Australian story. Instead, Brisbane 2032 draws on wildlife, geography and culture.

Whether by design or not, this focus on nature also neatly aligns with Tourism Australia’s recent ten-year strategy, moulded around promoting the nation as a first port for “deep connection to nature”.

Sydney sold a city. Brisbane 2032 takes a much broader approach, highlighting the challenge of representing a country with many voices.