Gap’s logo u-turn shows social network power
American clothing giant Gap has decided to abandon its new logo after a matter of days, amid almost universal criticism. The new logo was revealed last week, instantly sparking a wave of disapproval on Facebook, Twitter and elsewhere online, resulting in the change of heart.
Company President Marka Hansen’s opening explanation of the new logo – published after it was released on the website – was riddled with corporate-waffle, including the dubious belief that the graded blue square “honours our heritage”, which got the whole process off to a bad start. The situation worsened as the week progressed, with the initial dismay evolving into something closer to ridicule as more commentators latched onto the story.
Perhaps the tipping point came with tech-blogger John Gruber’s devastatingly succinct advice; “Sell your Gap stock.”
So, Gap has gone back to the old logo and essentially apologised for the whole affair.
The incident highlights a few interesting points;
The power of social media
The platform for the vast majority of the opinions expressed on the new logo was of course the major social networks, primarily Facebook and Twitter. Gap openly invited such participation, with its own official Facebook page asking customers for feedback, and (slightly oddly considering the new logo was already chosen and live) a crowd-sourced design process. Had the protestations come mainly from paper-based outlets I doubt that we would have seen such a quick reaction from the company. A drip-feed of criticism through traditional channels would have been far easier to shake off than the 24/7 deluge that social media enables.
The power of a familiar brand identity
A brand identity is more than simply a logo. It represents everything about a company, from the top to the bottom, from the CEO to the staff on the front-line. It is the ‘voice’ of a company, and it is how it choses to present itself to the world. Perhaps most importantly in a commercial setting a brand identity absolutely needs to represent something that the customer can relate to and wants to ‘buy into’. The new Gap logo, while definitely insipid and uninspired, did seem to succeed in bringing the company into the 21st century. It used a form of the Nimbus Sans font, which has a clear and current appeal. The old logo – now reinstated as the existing logo once again – is incredibly dated, with a serif-heavy Pall Mall font. Launched over two decades ago, it now seems wilfully, almost proudly, outdated. Although a great deal of the furore over the switch centred around the perceived poor design of the new logo, the powerful familiarity of the old brand also played a part. Without reaching the heights of, for instance, Levi Strauss’ red tab, with which a brand becomes defined and beloved, the Gap logo does have something of an immediately recognisable appeal. The company may have underestimated what it already had in this regard.
The willingness of a major company to backtrack
Maybe the most surprising part of this story is the fact that Gap performed a u-turn. It shows that for all the bluster about ‘heritage’ and changing the face of the company, it still considers customers and their opinions as valuable enough to feature in such high-level decisions. It is this point that is likely to ‘save’ Gap from the incident triggering some sort of terminal tailspin that some have predicted.
When a company is so determinedly customer-focused and is willing to adapt so reactively to what the paying public wants, it certainly doesn’t have any problems with its priorities.
Tags: Brand Identity, gap, gap logo, logo, logo design