With the London 2012 Olympics drawing ever closer, the much publicised visual identity is now rolling out and we’re seeing an increasing number of applications using the branding in different ways. May's unveiling of the Olympic tickets designed by Futurebrand revealed an interesting turnaround. The prevailing consensus – most notably on the Creative Review comments board – is that the previously hated branding was now actually working quite well and a number of people, having lived with it for the last five years, have changed their minds. Anyone with a passing interest in design will surely be aware of the venom directed towards the Wolff Olinsdesigned logo when it first emerged in 2007. This negativity came not only from designers but from the general public and, unsurprisingly, tabloids newspapers. Now, with designers leading the way, is it possible that the tide is turning and the logo, it turns out, isn’t actually that bad?

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with changing your mind – our job involves a lot of looking at 'stuff' on a purely aesthetic basis and it’s unrealistic (and unnecessary) to impose a rule that your first reaction can’t change. On seeing a piece of design for the first time, it's often difficult not to make a snap decision as to whether you like it or not. There is an argument that your initial reaction is the most accurate, and if a logo/website/poster doesn’t do it’s intended job immediately then it has failed as a piece of design. But is this always the case?

Sites like Brand New are an interesting place to observe this kind of behaviour. For the uninitiated, it’s a convenient, well-written news source that keeps us up-to-date on all the big developments in the world of logo design and branding. We love it, but there is one element of the site (and the same goes for countless others like it), that is a little off-putting – the comments section.

The reaction to new work isn’t always negative, but there does seem to be a worrying tendency for the comments section to turn into a design-criticism-lion-pit where the main aim of many of those commenting is simply to come up with the most amusing way to insult the featured work. This is in no way a criticism ofBrand New, it’s a really good site (and there a plenty of other similar sites), neither is this a criticism of all the people who make comments on such sites. It's just those who glance a piece of design work, decide they don’t like the colours and go in for the kill. People are much happier to act in an overly aggressive way (and more often than not anonymously) from behind the safety of a keyboard and, if a piece of work is featured that the masses deem to be under par, the mob mentality soon kicks in.

This was particularly evident when the Gap re-branding was unveiled in 2010. We blogged about it at the timeand there's no need for us to go into any more detail than we already have, but in short, the logo was effectively drowned at birth purely because of internet public opinion. Would it have been a successful re-brand if people had given it a chance? Perhaps not, but largely because of the criticism and knee-jerk reactions from the graphic design armchair pundits, we’ll never know.

We strongly encourage debate. We’re pretty opinionated and have aired our fair share of views on other people's design work in the past. We think it's a massively important part of design – if you want your work in the public domain, you need to be prepared to have people pick holes in it and possibly hate it. After all, we’re designers, not artists. If someone despises your work, you either accept that they’re wrong and move on, or accept that they’re right and you didn’t do a good enough job. And move on.

However, with any criticism an amount of understanding is required. Is ripping someone's work to shreds after seeing part of it on a website the best way to express your thoughts? Often the vitriolic opinions written on the comments boards are in response to seeing a single logo or a small part of something much bigger. And it goes without saying that a design project like the London 2012 Olympics goes far beyond the logo.

The fact is that the initial negativity has given way to the London 2012 design work becoming accepted – and even embraced – by the readers of design websites and general public. It took a while, but the closer the event gets, the more positive comments we’re seeing regarding the design work. This is a point worth bearing in mind the next time you see a logo on a website and decide to take to the comments board.

As mentioned above, we encourage debate and would love to hear your thoughts. Perhaps you've done a u-turn on the London 2012 logo? Or maybe you hate it as much as you did when you first saw it? If so, feel free to air your views and vent your frustrations…

Thanks for reading.

Phil and Tom

Mat Dolphin is a London-based design studio, and the creative partnership of Tom Actman and Phil Cook. For their thoughts on everything from awards schemes to budget logo design, take a mosey on over to their rather good blog.