G20 image problem?

Roll up, roll up. The G20 circus comes to town this week. My friend Jimmy is a plane spotter and he's lovin' it, hurtling around from Stansted to Heathrow to Northfleet for a glimpse of Airforce One and other high-powered incomings.

Politics aside - does anyone else think these mighty powers could have done better with their logo? Twenty little heads peeping over a big boardroom table? Four orange squares representing the cornerstones of civilisation perhaps? Even the name is rendered a little obscure. Is it G minus 20? G hyphen 20? Or G to 20 in as many seconds?

Tush, I have not done my research, and intend no disrespect to whomsoever designed the logo. You clearly had an impossible brief and I cannot begin to imagine the nightmare twists and tweaks of an approvals process involving government agencies from 20 nations... In fact, credit where it's due, it looks serious, ambitious and official. Smacks of world domination, in a Bond villainy kind of way.

That might be appropriate this week, as our gracious leaders seem set fair to be cast as big bad villains once again. Which made me think - could the grouping not be better presented? We're always banging on about the importance of branding - well how could the G20 capitalise better on its global brand equity?

Might I suggest an internal culture shift to a more unified and less partisan structure (address those entrenched silos and personal fiefdoms known as 'countries' perhaps?). They could come up with a programme of resolutions and communications to meet the new needs of stakeholders (that's us populations, I guess). And they could certainly put on a friendlier face. Something less austere and forbidding.

With just a wee bit of jiggling, I came up with this:

And that's why I am a writer, not a designer.

Carrie