Olympics. Media, Mr. Sano, the country, the citizens, all are the culmination of immaturity.

Since it seems to be getting a lot of attention, I decided to write about the logo. Thinking about the current situation from my own perspective, I felt that, in the end, 'everything' is probably immature. It's not about who did what, and I don't think the actual essence of the matter lies in who copied whom.

Various circumstances overlapped, various suspicions and anxieties intertwined, creating the current situation. And it just so happened to settle on Mr. Sano, an easy target. Since I felt uneasy if I didn't express it somehow, I thought about various things, and I'd like to write down what made sense to me.

What was the flow of events this time, in the first place?

If I try to organize and write down the flow of events, it would probably be as follows.

First, a Belgian person filed a lawsuit. Then, because it indeed looked similar, the internet got excited. Some 'somewhat special people who post anonymously on the internet' then researched and exposed everything from true to false.

Since netizens were getting excited about both true and false information, web media picked it up as a story without much thought. Since such web media was getting excited, TV picked it up without much thought.

After that, harassment centered around netizens. Mr. Sano couldn't bear it and resigned. That's the flow of events.

In other words, the media, so to speak, found 'some somewhat special people who post anonymously on the internet' amusing and made a fuss, and as a result, the logo was withdrawn. Didn't this ultimately lead to an enormous waste of taxpayer money?

So, let's try to look at it from Mr. Sano's perspective.

At first, he put his heart and soul into creating the logo. Yes, it passed the competition! I'm happy! And so, it was announced.

However, a Belgian designer filed a lawsuit, claiming it was similar! From his perspective, he'd think, 'Huh, it's just a coincidence, what's the big deal?' While he continued his usual work, dismissing it, netizens discovered mistakes in his past works. Oh no, this is bad, he apologized. On top of that, unsubstantiated stories about vested interests and such emerged.

While he was busy with various things, the general public started to feel that they 'would not forgive past mistakes and did not want to entrust things to someone who made mistakes (in short).' However, the tracing and plagiarism aspects were rubbing people the wrong way (though I think that's the whole point). Eventually, suspicions spread that 'the logo is actually a fake!' From his perspective, having past mistakes from completely different work dug up and his current career destroyed, spread like a forest fire, one after another.

Has society become one where even past mistakes are not forgiven for major projects? While he was considering how to make an announcement, taking legal aspects into account, it continued to spread rapidly.

And before he knew it, harassment came, interviews came, he was told to die, things had gotten out of hand. This is a situation where it's understandable to hate everything. Completely over the top.

Even if the origin of the matter was about who copied whom, the essence is flaws in design development and explanation.

Regarding this matter, people who are still talking about whether the logo was copied or not are just scratching the surface, which is fine, but those trying to see the essence say that's not the problem.

We understood it wasn't copied. But there must be a problem with the method, they say. It feels like whether it was copied or not is already out of the discussion. We understood what the shape was like, what the figure was like.

So, what is the problem, then? I think it's that we don't understand 'what purpose it was designed for' in the first place. Some might say, 'No, it was explained,' but it's far from enough. Or rather, I wonder if the initial concept itself wasn't accepted in the first place.

A logo used for a major project, from its color scheme to its figures and everything else, for the Olympics that will be talked about wherever Japan goes from now on, I personally believe that one must consider what they want to leave behind. Not just what they want to leave behind, but they must also imbue it with many, many more meanings.

For example, if I were to think about what I would do, from 'past Olympics' to 'current Olympics'. Expressing Japan's evolution during that time, and the meaning of continuing to reflect that in the future. And to people all over the world, what Japan is now, and what Japan will be. I would imbue the logo with such meanings. Is 'T' enough?

And here's the difficult part: it must aim for a design that is loved by all citizens. Wasn't this the biggest failure? Normally, one would create personas and design with whom they want to resonate in mind. However, in this case, it's the entire world. Based on such concepts, one would decide on color schemes, shapes, and develop the design.

In other words, it's not about what the design looks like, but rather that the content that should have been properly announced during the design development was not announced. They might have thought about it, though. A logo, by nature, can embody identity, corporate culture, history, and many other things.

However, the announced content seemed to be something like, 'It's made with a T and a circle.' The problem isn't that it's made with a T and a circle, is it? I understand that gold, black, and red are considered Japanese colors. Indeed, when I previously thought about a design representing Japan, I also ended up with those colors. Or rather, I recall using black and gold, colors traditionally used in samurai armor.

However, I understand that Japanese colors are used, but this time, during the development process, they should have also considered being loved by the citizens. They should have also envisioned a logo loved worldwide.

Furthermore, normally, one would conduct research, such as what colors are generally expected for an Olympic logo (if the budget is large). If it turns out that everyone desires a bright logo, then the design would proceed based on that premise.

First of all. What's the meaning of expanding from A to Z? What did they want to express by doing that? If it's the Amazon logo, the arrow is drawn from a to z because they handle products from a to z. The Olympic logo's idea is simply interesting, but was there something specific they wanted to express by doing that?

I think the idea is interesting, but for a stage like this, shouldn't it have expressed Japan's identity in the first place? Wasn't it absolutely essential to have 'a logo that expresses identity while being most accepted by the public and the world'? Perhaps it was narrowed down too much to just Japanese colors, coolness, ideas, and concepts. Well, it's just a guess, though.

Anyway, I think the fact that such development elements were ultimately overlooked led to this controversy. But still, I think presenting proposals and having a public vote would be the most convincing. Personally. Instead of the judges unilaterally deciding and producing it. Wouldn't it be better to create multiple designs that can achieve the original goal regardless of which is chosen, present them, and let the public vote, giving a sense that the entire nation is creating it? After all, the public is like the client, right?

However, it's just a different approach from the idea of being loved by the public. Just for submitting one proposal, Sano-san, who presented and won the competition, 'shouldn't' be blamed.

In the first place, the people who chose it should have realized that the 'nation' chose an approach that fully emphasized Japanese character and interesting ideas. Why does Sano-san, who submitted and presented such a 'type of proposal that doesn't consider public likes and dislikes' in the competition, need to be blamed? I think such an approach is perfectly fine.

Shouldn't the 'nation' that chose a proposal not considering the public be the one blamed?

Seriously, as I'm writing this, I wonder, why is Sano-san, who submitted one proposal and was chosen, being blamed? It makes no sense. With this, it's natural for him to lash out. Why isn't that understood?

Could there possibly still be people talking about plagiarism after seeing the alphabet concept and design? The alphabet concept absolutely cannot come from anything but an original idea, right? Is that even realistically possible? For example, you see a design and think, 'This is good!' and use it as a reference. And then you think, 'Let's make an alphabet from this!'? Realistically, if the idea of expanding it into an alphabet because it's 'T' came first, and then the current shape was created from that, it seems more plausible.

Even if, by a long shot, the alphabet was conceived through some process from plagiarism, the original design was also somewhat different. If the original design was different, why would they intentionally make it similar to the source of plagiarism? If someone still calls this plagiarism, it just seems like they only want to believe their own opinion.

Some people say, 'He doesn't understand what he did!', but the person himself worked hard to create the logo, submitted it, was suspected of plagiarism, had past works dug up, and mistakes exposed. Regarding this logo, he 'just worked hard to create it,' so he didn't really 'do' anything wrong. Whatever he 'did,' in this case, he just worked hard, so he probably wouldn't feel clear about apologizing.

However, even if he certainly worked hard on the logo, his response after his subordinate's mistake was discovered was terrible.

Anyone with normal professionalism would take responsibility as a leader for what their subordinates did. It's the same everywhere. If you replace it with a regular store, you'll understand immediately.

For example, suppose a staff member makes a fatal mistake and inconveniences a customer. Who comes out then? Who is held fully responsible? It's undoubtedly the store manager. There's no store manager who blames everything on the staff when they make a mistake and doesn't apologize.

It's the same no matter the circumstances. Somehow, regarding this apology, his stance of trying to push through his own will was too strong, just saying he would apologize for that matter. More than wanting people to believe the logo was original, it was as if the logo had been 'tainted' by his subordinate's actions.

If you replace this incident with a regular store, and a customer says, 'Your subordinate staff did something terrible to me in the past, apologize!' Well, you'd apologize, right? No matter how good things are now. The store manager would go out and apologize, right? If told, I would apologize too. Especially if it happened recently.

Moreover, even if it was just for reference images, you wouldn't copy, crop, and pull images from someone else's blog for an Olympic competition, right? To put it another way, I can only think there was a problem with the office's work system. That's unacceptable. What kind of management system were they working under? It's far too sloppy. I've never done anything like that. They should have at least used stock photos or something.

Perhaps they should have withdrawn at that point. They had already 'tainted' the Olympic logo. 'I'm sorry,' they should have said. However, a huge amount of money must have already been spent. Contracts to use the logo on products, for example. Various discussions must have been progressing. To ignore all that and pull the logo was certainly no ordinary decision.

However, if things had progressed that far, wouldn't fighting it out have actually prevented subsequent damages and various other issues? Their honor. Their pride. Shouldn't they have issued statements repeatedly for that purpose? However, whether companies would actually use that logo, and what its image would be, is actually unknown. Probably, a bad image would have remained, though.

Furthermore, it would be better to clarify issues like vested interests and related matters.

It's natural for the will of the people to be reflected in such national projects. That's why transparency becomes necessary. Big agencies like Dentsu and Hakuhodo get involved in national projects. That's natural.

But because there are many people and the organizations are large, dark rumors never cease. There are all sorts of people. Of course, some people do bad things.

So, since bad rumors about Dentsu and Hakuhodo never cease in the world, wouldn't it have been better to just create something for the announcement and upload it in the first place? If there was nothing shady, that is. Well, I don't think there's no way there's nothing.

Regarding vested interests and business, of course, large sums of money are involved, so there's no way it's not. Rather, it wouldn't work without it. They have to make money. The problem is that we need to make the structure much, much clearer. We must reject any system that allows people to get money by cheating.

Actually, I think a big reason why Mr. Sano is being blamed this time, besides the design issues, is that he might have gotten caught up in the whole vested interests thing. If Mr. Sano was actually involved in such dealings, I think it's natural for him to be blamed, but what's the actual situation? Well, it's not impossible.

Now is the age of the internet. Things don't progress without the internet. When the Olympics were held before, there was no internet. Since Japan is the first Olympics with the internet, if there's no consideration for that, these kinds of troubles will definitely occur. If it was a big agency that thoroughly researched and published on internet marketing, I think they should have known. I don't know why they didn't utilize that know-how.

Modern media = extension of internet users?

By the way, the media was also too immature regarding the internet. That's why they carelessly caused a firestorm. Because, aren't today's media basically just megaphones for internet users? They talk about using the internet, but their sections only pick up news from the internet, showing no other ability.

The power of internet users is not just their information gathering ability, but largely due to media outlets that find it interesting and pick it up. Because the media picks it up as a story, the opinions of a 'few' develop into 'public opinion.' In other words, the power of internet users' opinions on general society depends on whether they can penetrate mainstream media.

Moreover, the source of this, so to speak, is 'a certain type of special person who posts anonymously on the internet.' Of course, extreme viewpoints also gather. Basically, people who post anonymously on the internet are a minority. If you live a normal life, you wouldn't encounter such people even if you met thousands of others. Or rather, you didn't. In the first place, many opinions are minority ones.

Rather than being essential, many opinions are written based on a vague feeling because they are anonymous. Even if there's no great meaning in them, being written as text gives them a certain persuasive power. Media, functioning as an extension of the internet where such extreme opinions gather, turned an event that should have been handled carefully into a cesspool of slander and defamation.

Since when did the world become one that is dragged along by such layers of people?

Certainly, the achievement of exposing weaknesses in the design industry and the government's methods is significant. But why did the target focus on easily understandable figures like Mr. Sano, rather than the core issues? Frankly, the media's gleeful picking up of easy criticisms of Mr. Sano posted online is probably one part of it. Without thinking. Just as a megaphone. Couldn't there have been a better way to output it?

So, what will remain in the end? Such trends can sometimes work in a good direction. It's a form of cheating surveillance. Like chasing the 24-hour TV marathon, there's a power to expose a kind of staged event or cheating. On the other hand, once a fire is lit by conviction, it seems like everything, good and bad, is mixed up and crushed with full force, with the intention to 'do it'.

However, if we only consider the logo, the art director probably didn't cheat. The rest is simply a direction mistake. More of a mistake than cheating. Otherwise, the idea of the alphabet wouldn't come to mind. There must be deeper issues to explore. I can only pray that something isn't pulling strings behind the scenes, directing the vector of the reports and media towards Mr. Sano.

Media = censorship by internet users might be starting. Also, will anyone make the Olympic logo?

Honestly, if such an incomprehensible trend emerges, isn't it a society where freedom of speech can only be obtained anonymously? Because they even go so far as to expose the mistakes of designers who defended it. Such a society gives the impression of nothing but censorship by internet users. If I'm going to be censored by internet users, I'd rather choose to be somewhat controlled by the state.

They say they're going to solicit designs publicly, but if the author's name is revealed, internet users will start investigating that person again, and you can't say there won't be mistakes, nor can you say there won't be similarities. Even if it's an original creation, unintended similarities can occur. Sending a logo to a public competition under such circumstances is honestly just a risk if chosen. For about 1 million yen. Right? If they guaranteed about 100 million yen, maybe someone would do it.

Since when did society become like this? I think it might be better to consider laws and the role of media. We should think about what ultimately benefits the country and then consider how to report. Regardless of the withdrawal, I can't help but feel that inflaming public opinion to this extent has done nothing for the country.

That being said, in such an internet society, there are of course people who say what they want and enjoy causing a firestorm, so I think we need to think much more about how to deal with such situations skillfully.

Actually, too many factors are intertwined, so you can't simply say what's good or bad. In other words, perhaps Mr. Sano, the selectors, the overly critical people, and the media were all at fault. It made me think about many things, and it was content that made me reflect on my own work. From now on, we may need to delve deeper into and discuss the design industry and the nature of work.

P.S.: And just as I was saying that, they're starting to approve the logo now…

Just as I was thinking that, I woke up this morning and saw it… It seems that a situation where they are finally, truly finally, starting to approve it is spreading.

http://togetter.com/li/868979

In the end, people are starting to acknowledge it, and those who can't back down now continue to criticize. Some are becoming defiant. It seems there's an increasing number of reactions like, 'What were you guys who cornered Sano-san thinking?' When lined up, Sano-san's design is indeed good, and the others are no good. 'It looks like a New Year's card,' they say. 'This must have been the difference between an amateur and a professional,' they say.

Some might say, 'Why didn't they explain that?' Regarding the fact that it's visible whether enlarged or reduced, I do think there was room to explain that they wanted to differentiate it from previous logos. However, if you're finally going to acknowledge the design, at least apologize to Sano-san.

Say, 'We went too far, we're sorry, this design was indeed good.' And say, 'But the explanation was insufficient, and the method was strange, wasn't it?' and properly acknowledge it. Instead of collective assault, both sides should properly stand in a position of reconciliation. I think it's a sin to have collectively assaulted more than necessary. It led to damage extending to family members and unrelated people. That was completely over the top, wasn't it?

Seriously, what is this farce?