I’m sure you are all aware of the Gap logo fiasco that happened this month. The release of their new logo went under the radar, for the most part, until they told the world, “Hey, we’re not testing this logo. This IS the new logo.” Then the design blogger community went nuts criticizing not only Gap, but the design firm as well for creating such an elementary logo that didn’t speak to their brand image at all. Then the regular customers caught on. They hated it, too.
It got so bad, in fact, Gap switched back to their classic logo in a matter of a week from releasing the new one.
So, what exactly was wrong with their new logo? As an art director, I can tell you where the design community took issue.
Their new logo didn’t exude the Gap brand. When you think Gap, you think classic, safe and somewhat affordable attire. The typeface of their old/now-again-current logo shows that with the light, clean, simple serif font. The new/now abandoned logo used a common typeface, Helvetica, and a heavy, almost gaudy version of it on top of it all. Essentially, Gap tried to go modern, but really just lost their brand identity.
The second, and maybe larger, issue was that nasty little blue square with the gradient. What’s so wrong with it, you may ask? Well, I can see that the design firm was trying to call reference to the old logo, which would be the correct thing to do in a brand evolution. However, it wasn’t handled well. Their biggest mistake was adding the gradient. Aside from the technical issues of printing a gradient correctly, it just looks…cheap. When programs like Adobe Illustrator and (I can’t believe I’m going to reference this ancient software) Freehand came out in the early 90′s, there were prepackaged gradients. Well, designers of the time thought this was the bees knees and added them EVERYWHERE. Don’t believe me? Dig up some old design pieces from back-in-the-day. You’ll see what I’m talking about. Gradients then were like the glossy buttons of today. Tired and overused. But people love them.
Ultimately, while neither of these two issues are particularly bad on their own, combined they were a cluster storm of WTF. Go back and take a good, long look at that new logo. Try to erase every bit of knowledge you have of Gap, the company. What do you think that new Gap does? My first impression: start-up tech or software company. Not good for a hip clothing company.
But, what can we learn from Gap in all of this? Here’s my list of lessons:
- Listen to your design team – they know what they are talking about. I’m willing to put large sums of money down that the design firm Gap hired had tried to steer them down a different path many times before the Gap marketing team picked this logo. Marketers tend to go the safe route, which ultimately kills creativity. Designers, however, take your brand identity and your target customer in consideration for every design. They do things for reasons. Just ask them what their reasoning was if you are unsure.
- Remember your brand. In the end, Gap forgot who they are and what their unique selling proposition was. Your brand is like your company’s face. If you want to jive with the younger crowd, don’t dress like a geek from 20 years ago. It’s that simple.
- Test groups are key. Had Gap done the proper procedure of running test groups with their target audience of their new logo, they could have saved face. Ultimately, your target audience will be the judge of your company, so include them early in the re-branding stages.
Hopefully, other large companies have learned these valuable lessons, which apply to more than just a brand refresh. I think they can apply to almost every marketing effort they do. And if they didn’t, their audiences are more than happy to put them in their place.
For a good distraction, take a look at this Ad Freak reflection on some other companies that have re-branded themselves with either awesome or terrifying outcomes.
http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2010/10/a-look-at-30-other-corporate-logo-redesigns.html
ST
Filed under: Uncategorized
