Like Marmite, the logo for the London Olympics is already either loved or hated but it cannot be ignored, the design community noted approvingly.

While the public vented their disgust at the rebranding exercise yesterday, experts welcomed the thinking behind it, if not the finished image.

By jettisoning the traditional “nationalistic” style of previous Olympic logos, with their clear visual references to a host city or country’s landmarks, the organisers of London 2012 have commissioned something more “progressive” and squarely targeted at the internet generation, designers said.

But there was also a widespread sense that Wolff Olins, the branding consultancy that charged £400,000 for a year’s work on the project, had struggled to bring together the three core elements of the design — the year, the Olympic movement and the host city — resulting in a clumsy final logo.

Deyan Sudjic, director of the Design Museum, said: “I think they have done a very good job of dealing with a difficult task. It’s not a classic but it’s not bland and it’s not corporate either. It is saying we are groovy, it is quite sharp and it is saying this is for the world of skateboarders and MySpace users.

“The trouble is that it has also got to carry a lot of information. My problem with it is the way it has to have the word London in it and the Olympic rings and the year 2012. It looks quite awkward and it’s having to work very, very hard.” Peter Saville, the graphic artist responsible for some of the most iconic record sleeves of the 1980s and 1990s, agreed. “There’s a funny ménage à trois thing going on here between the Olympic rings, London and 2012,” he said.

“I find it a bit cheesy. Those rings don’t sit happily within that angular form and the typographic expression of London is a little insecure and quite apologetic. On the other hand, it’s incredibly noticeable, brave and confrontational. Designs which are effective are abrasive on our sensibilities initially. That’s how they work. It doesn’t have to be nice — things are nice because they are familiar, while a great design forges a new aesthetic. It’s real job is to be a catalyst for awareness of the Olympics and it’s doing that already.”

Rita Clifton, the London chairwoman of the global brand consultancy Interbrand, said that the logo would not be to everyone’s taste but would engage its target audience of young people successfully. “It’s got that Marmite factor. But we find that even with things that many people start off disliking, they get used to them,” she said.

“The young generation look at logos and brands in really different ways from their parents. If you think about Google and Facebook they all communicate in a rather different way from the old-fashioned quality stamps on packaged goods.

“People all over the world have a very particular view of Britain, which is often tied up in the old stereotypes of London buses and beefeaters. These are already in people’s minds so what they are trying to do here is tell a new and different story about London. It’s very easy to be critical but it’s also important to understand what it’s supposed to be standing for. I think it’s got vitality and energy.”

Stephen Bayley, a leading design consultant and author, disagreed. He said: “It is a puerile mess, an artistic flop and a commercial scandal. It is feeble. It was a wonderful chance to do something magnificent and it was a waste of resources.”