Gini Dietrich

New Gap Logo Deserves Applause

By: Gini Dietrich | October 11, 2010 | 

I’m strugging to understand why everyone is making such a big deal about the new Gap logo. Sure, it looks like someone without any creativity designed it, but let’s be real – so did the original logo. So why, then, is everyone all up in arms about this?

A few people DM’d me on Twitter asking me my thoughts and during the weekend I read what other bloggers and journalists have to say about it. I think what it comes down to is that most people think a logo is design, just like the iPad and the iPhone are design. I disagree. Sure, a logo is design. And sure the iPad and the iPhone are design, but in different definitions of the word.

If you’re a reader of this blog, you know I’m a huge fan of Harvard Business Review. But their bloggers got it totally wrong. Umair Haque makes it sound like, because he doesn’t like the look of it, he thinks it looks like it was designed by “bean counters,” and he is confusing logo design with technology design, that Gap will lose customers and new customers won’t consider them as a shopping venue any longer. Give me a break.

What I love about the entire thing is they crowdsourced the design of the new logo…with professional designers. In a world of constantly changing technology and companies trying to understand the shift in communication with their customers instead of at their customers, Gap is going out on a limb by asking their community of brand ambassadors to participate in the new design. Why are we cruxifying them for that? We should be applauding their effort and ability to take a risk. It’s something we all talk about all day long – take a risk, see what works, be a leader in your industry. And then, as soon as someone takes our counsel, we shame them for it?

I still don’t see what the big deal is and I applaud Gap for going out on a limb and taking a risk – something most, if not all, of their competitors would never do. And as communication professionals, we’ll all sit behind closed doors and complain that no one listens to us when their competitors won’t take the same risks. We can’t talk out of both sides of our mouths – either we want our clients or companies to embrace new technologies and ideas or we don’t.

Update: Oct. 11, 2010 at 6:55 p.m. CT. According to Gap, “We’re listening to our customers. We’ve heard loud and clear an outpouring of support for our iconic blue box logo.” And that’s it, folks. They’re going back to their old logo. Unbelievable.

About Gini Dietrich

Gini Dietrich is the founder and CEO of Arment Dietrich, an integrated marketing communications firm. She is the author of Spin Sucks, co-author of Marketing in the Round, and co-host of Inside PR. She also is the lead blogger at Spin Sucks and is the founder of Spin Sucks Pro. Join the Spin Sucks   community!

  • lesmckeown

    I agree that there is too much angst expended over all aspects of graphic design (not just logos). Check out Amazon’s original home page from 1995:

    …and yet they did OK.

    I can see Umair Haque’s point in that the new Gap design does look like something more associated with say, a consulting company than a clothing retailer, but it isn’t going to stop people from coming into their stores.

    • GiniDietrich

      @lesmckeown WOW! Look at that old logo AND site! It makes me feel better to know Amazon did such a terrible job so early on. That’s amazing!

  • KeithTrivitt

    You make some excellent points regarding the fact that Gap appears to have actually taken some advice from its PR/comms and marketing teams about using the power of the social Web and its vast brand audience and brand affinity to find what it hopes will be a great new logo.

    But here’s the issue: Gap only disclosed that it is supposedly crowdsourcing this new logo AFTER a huge amount of public outcry, and AFTER it took the company more than 24 hours to respond to numerous media inquiries, including two articles from AdAge into why Gap had been mum (up to that point) about the rebranding effort and the new logo.

    I think if we are going to laud praise upon Gap for crowdsourcing this effort, we also need to keep in mind that Gap’s intentions for the crowdsourcing efforts don’t exactly appear altruistic given how long it took the company to respond to the derision on the Web. While it would be great to say that Gap is forward-thinking with this effort and is using this as a moment in time to show that brands can truly engage the power of their audiences to create a more vibrant and successful company, I just don’t see it in this instance.

    What I see is Gap having created this logo entirely without any customer feedback (aside from likely focus groups), then putting it out via a soft launch, with little to no explanation for the reasoning behind the rebranding or why the new logo looks the way it does (remember, Gap’s old logo is one of the most recognizable brand marks in the world and has millions – if not billions – of dollars tied to it), until they were publicly called out for being so quiet about it.

    To me, Gap’s seemingly altruistic crowdsourcing efforts, after the fact, speak to a company that has now realized it might have messed up what was its most recognizable and profitable asset, and it’s desperately trying to figure out a way to make it work.

    I hope I’m wrong because I love Gap and its clothes, but I just don’t buy the claim Gap is doing this as a way to include its customers and audience in a social form of rebranding.


    • GiniDietrich

      @KeithTrivitt TOTALLY agree with your assessment on being “mum” on the issue for more than 24 hours. In today’s day and age, that is a lifetime. So do you think they released the logo and then stretched the truth by saying it was crowdsourced? If so, that’s an entirely different topic.

  • CarmenKrushas

    I love the new logo. I think seeing the word Gap in such bold simple lettering with the denim square in the background resonates fresh forward thinking with a strong tie to their brand history: solid denim. Simple and true and to the point. No gap there.

  • SamanthaCollier

    ” It’s something we all talk about all day long – take a risk, see what works, be a leader in your industry. And then, as soon as someone takes our counsel, we shame them for it?” I agree with you 100% Gini. Big pat on the back to GAP for taking the risk.

  • bricefaubel

    Bad logo or not, I think that the real mistake was to address the criticism by putting the crowdsourcing option out there (especially hen crowdsourcing itself is met with opposing views). Now I just think they’re backpedaling. Tropicana had an issue because the customers were having trouble finding the product due to new packaging and new logo, but the Pepsi logo/rebrand was met with criticism as well (myself included, still not a fan of it) but they stuck with it. You haven’t heard much about that lately have you? Same thing goes for Gatorade moving to “G”. Gap needs to either stick by their new brand or ditch it entirely.

    Either way, they had a lot of news time last week and the @Gaplogo Twitter account was a great way to deal with the critics. They should have stopped there.

  • bricefaubel

    Bad logo or not, I think that the real mistake was to address the criticism by putting the crowdsourcing option out there (especially when crowdsourcing itself is met with opposing views). Now I just think they’re backpedaling. Tropicana had an issue because the customers were having trouble finding the product due to new packaging and new logo, but the Pepsi logo/rebrand was met with criticism as well (myself included, still not a fan of it) but they stuck with it. You haven’t heard much about that lately have you? Same thing goes for Gatorade moving to “G”. Gap needs to either stick by their new brand or ditch it entirely.

    Either way, they had a lot of news time last week and the @Gaplogo Twitter account was a great way to deal with the critics. They should have stopped there.

    • GiniDietrich

      @bricefaubel I think the @GapLogo bio is pretty funny! You’re right – they need to stick with their decision. And, BTW, I love Gatorade changing to G. 🙂

  • SteveCongdon

    You “love” the crowdsourcing element? Good God, woman! 😉 You’re killin’ me over here! I can appreciate alot of what you’re saying here. But on this crowdsourcing thing we disagree. I think it’s a dreadful practice, and will eventually lower professional’s fees over time. So a client says, you do the work, and MAYBE we’ll pay you for it?

    I’m all for risk taking and doing something new. Their new corp. ID is an entirely subjective call. Love it, hate it, whatever. We can all have an opinion as professionals. It’s the method by which Gap is trying to get themselves out of this little pickle that bums me out. Crowdsourcing?!


    Maybe it’s the label I have such a problem with. They might have had better luck calling it a “contest.” With a huge, fat multimillion dollar prize that’s worthy of someone’s time.

    • GiniDietrich

      @SteveCongdon Oh Steve, Steve, Steve. As a marketer and communication professional, I LOVE crowdsourcing. It’s customer engagement at it’s very best…if it’s done correctly. I disagree that it’s lowering our fees. Perhaps you’re right, though, it could be called a contest and have the same effect.

    • @ginidietrich @SteveCongdon Maybe it’ll lower fees for con artists that were scamming their clients to start with? 😉

      The best brands use targeted focus groups to see what their customer base are thinking before a new product launches. It’s just crowdsourcing in another guise, and if done properly it’s a key tool in any marketing approach.

  • MimiMeredith

    I’m with Carmen. And I haven’t thought or talked about Gap this much since my children were babies. So something is going right here!

    • CarmenKrushas

      @MimiMeredith Thanks Mimi!

  • lisagerber

    the online chatter isn’t always a litmus test for the bottom line. and our clients need to be careful of reacting to it. Look what happened with the Apple’s announcement of the iPad. They were laughed at and ridiculed for the name selection. They stayed the course, and I haven’t noticed that it’s held back sales, have you? : D
    I assume Gap has a strong strategy behind the re-brand and should stay with it.

    • GiniDietrich

      @lisagerber @MimiMeredith You’re both right in that EVERYONE is talking about Gap. I mean…EVERYONE. Will it help sales? Who knows, but the whole freaking world is talking about it.

  • 3HatsComm

    Gini, I agree with your post, taking chances.. and that maybe we’re too quick to judge. We’ve seen logo changes before, that’s not new. We’re all critics, and I just don’t like the new logo. Personal taste will vary.

    Mostly I don’t see their endgame with this rebranding strategy; not sure how this will change people’s perception of their product, service, the brand. Yes there is increased chatter and attention, this new logo might bring new customers or old customers back into the stores for a while. But will they spend, any more or less than they used to? Will they be loyal, turn into brand advocates? If Gap hasn’t changed the product (selection, pricing) with new “strategy” to match, not sure the answer will be “yes.” FWIW.

    • GiniDietrich

      @3HatsComm I think we place WAY too much emphasis on a logo to drive new customers or return customers. That was the argument HBR was making, too. That people aren’t going to shop because they don’t like the logo. I think that’s malarkey.

  • paigeworthy

    I don’t know. Just…maybe they should actually focus on making their product better — crowdsourcing pants that actually fit, perhaps? — instead of putting their energy into designing a logo that looks like it took about five minutes of some intern’s time to design.


    • GiniDietrich

      @paigeworthy LOL, Paige! I think you’re on to something…crowdsourcing pants that fit!

  • Quick

    My sentiments exactly! The new logo is terrible, BUT they are strengthening relationships with their brand ambassadors and getting tons of press. #theywin

  • Nick

    I completely and total disagree… The new logo is horrendous and is a horrible move. It takes a great brand and makes it cheap. Just because the original logo was very simplistic, doesn’t mean it wasn’t “creatively designed.” Think of Pepsi and Coke, both designs that are very simplistic, yet incredibly effective. In fact we could move on to Best Buy, Target, Walmart and on and on.

    Getting attention is one thing, but cheapening your brand because of it is another.

    I do not applaud the Gap for going out on a limb. They changed their logo, it looks horrible and they will change it very soon I can assure you.

    Applauding risk? Is this Top Chef? Their execution was poor and was a mistake.

    You shouldn’t be applauded for taking a risk, you should be applauded for execution whether it was a risk or not.

    At the end of the day it is about results, not about group hugs…

    • GiniDietrich

      @Nick You’re entitled to disagree with me. I just think we’re placing way too much emphasis on whether or not a logo drives business. I don’t think it does and I think it’s pretty freaking cool that a huge, global company is embracing change, from a customer engagement perspective.

    • Nick

      You think it is “freaking cool” yet you don’t think it drives new business? The embracing of change does not always equal good…

      A large percentage of the comments on this post are from people who perceive any type of “buzz” is a good thing.

      Creating buzz is the easy part, creating ROI is the part that matters.

    • @Nick Without buzz, you very often don’t have ROI.

    • Nick

      You don’t mess up an entire brand for a short term buzz. The risk reward ratio isn’t even close. And it looks like the Gap just changed their logo back.

    • @Nick I don’t think Gap changed their logo for “a short term buzz” – there was obviously a longer-term plan in place. Of course, the wondrous world of social media made it seem a bigger thing than it was, as @ginidietrich , @PatrickReyes and @MikeLangford have already pointed out so well.

    • Nick

      You could say it was planned for short term buzz or you could say it wasn’t. Doesn’t really matter. The point is, it was reckless and should not be applauded.

      The Gap just went back to the original logo do to nobody liking it. IT was a failure. The proper research and focal groups where obviously not utilized.

      So, they had to take it down. Just because you created buzz for a second, doesn’t mean it was a good thing. Especially when your community is saying you made a mistake.

      Danny, it is actually apparent that it wasn’t a long term strategy do to the fact of the obvious immediate public’s negative feedback.

      It is crystal clear that the long term strategy wasn’t in play because the public’s reaction. If it was, the ad agency should close it’s doors today and not be allowed to be apart of another campaign.

      Proper research and focal groups were obviously not done if it was a long term strategy.

      If it was a short term strategy, an epic fail as well. To create 2 days of buzz, you just made your brand look like crap. If the only way you can create buzz for a client is to make them look like crap, you need a new profession.

    • @Nick Yes and no, Nick. Can we honestly say that NO-ONE liked it? I’m sure there were plenty who did; of course, media (social as well as traditional) doesn’t like a Happy Ever After ending, we just like to read negatives.

      Let’s go with a “What If” scenario.

      What if the majority of the public had liked it, and the new logo stayed? Would we be having any of this conversation? Would bloggers be writing about Gap’s great brand change? Probably not, because it doesn’t grab eyeballs. However, the fact that it was liked and continued shows a strategy was there. Just the same as I’m sure (having worked on branding for more than 12 years now) that it was never a fire-sale to begin with.

      Brands the size of Gap do not greenlight anything until it’s been approved, whether at board level or a mix of board and focus group/consumer feedback.

      The fact it was greenlighted isn’t a slur on the agency; it’s a question of who greenlighted at Gap.

      But then, who cares what a logo looks like? Do Nike sell products because of the swish, or because of the shoes made by the company with the swish?

      Logos are great for recognition (if you’re fortunate to have a globally recognized one). But logos don’t pay the bills; products do. I’m sure the folks that shop at Gap would continue to do so, regardless of whether the new logo was used or not.

    • Nick

      If “NO-ONE liked it?” Um, WTF? Obviously no matter what, there will be people who like or dislike something…

      Of course it was green-lighted, however major brands pay companies like myself who guide the decisions. We buy products BECAUSE of logos and style. DO you honestly believe the “swish” doesn’t sell products?

      Would you buy a Nike product without the swish?

      Your entire argument is based on failure. Your entire argument is based on a mistake that should not have been made.

      The very thought that logos and branding doesn’t pay the bills is 100% absurd.

      The point of my original comment was that the Gap should not have been applauded for this.

      I love how this article is about “embracing” technology, yet you blame social media and the bloggers for the logo being reverted back.

      The reason for the negativity was because the logo was shit, not because of “happy endings.”

    • @Nick Just answering your original comment above: “The Gap just went back to the original logo do to nobody liking it.”

      I don’t buy products based on logos; I buy products based on quality and substance. A logo is just a visual aspect to the company; how they quantify my needs is the deciding factor in my purchase decisions.

      I think the Gap CEO’s post on the company FB page shows that social media played a huge part in the about turn. Besides, just because I like a medium doesn’t mean I can’t criticize it when I feel it’s in the wrong.

  • J_a_i_m_e_y

    I think I’m leaning with 3HatsComm. To your point, they are taking a risk, changing it up, and going for it. But what is that something they are going for? They do have people talking about Gap so I give them credit for creating buzz about their brand!

    • GiniDietrich

      @J_a_i_m_e_y And it got you to comment on MY blog!

  • ErinBrumleve

    I like posts about design and I also appreciate risk. Really though I’m hoping new logo is a phase in their experimentation of brand identity. It’s just not very appealing and seems more like a font than a logo. That being said – I still like their jeans.

    • GiniDietrich

      @ErinBrumleve See! This is why I love you…my point, exactly! You’re still going to shop there, no matter what you think of their logo. Hoogly moogly.

  • BrandBucket

    I think the logo was brilliant if it was all supported by the marketing scheme that people love to ‘hate’ and they would get great publicity for their crowdsourcing logo if the first logo sucked. Otherwise, the logo just sucked.

  • RachaelSmith

    I’m just hoping there’s going to be a big sale on all the clothes with the old label.

    • GiniDietrich

      @RachaelSmith HAHAHAHAHA! I hope so, too!

  • BlairMInton

    I’m not in the media business so maybe my comments won’t be heard…I’m just the President of several very successful companies. I’ve never bought anything because of a wonderful logo…nor have I ever not bought something because of a bad logo…as a matter of fact, as a consumer I seldom ever look at logos. What is important to any company is the quality of the product and passion of the employees to serve me as a consumer. If the Gap improves their quality and salespeople, they will be successful…if not, they will continue to slide. The ugly logo will ultimately not make much difference one way or the other. We spend too much time on logos and not enough time on quality and service.

    • GiniDietrich

      @BlairMInton EXACTLY!!

  • BobReed

    So much typing over nothing. If this happened five years ago, without the social web, the vast majority of these conversations wouldn’t be taking place.

    • GiniDietrich

      @BobReed I seriously wasn’t going to blog about it and then I thought, “Why the heck is everyone making such a big deal?” So I took an opposing view. And @Billy is right – the conversation is going!

    • BobReed

      @ginidietrich @Billy I agree, and the reason it’s going is because the means to converse is established as is the pull to participate and be relevant.

    • Billy

      @BobReed @ginidietrich Waited a week and too many boring blogs about “what” so that I could see this. Makes me believe that social media does exist. Gini thanks a million. I am a fan.

    • Billy

      @BobReed @ginidietrich PUll beats push everytime! This is what I signed up for. Newbee, but I am already tired of all the lists of things that will make me an uber something or other. Lets talk!!!

    • GiniDietrich

      @Billy You mean you don’t think you can be an uber-blogger if you read a list of things that tell you what to do? Hrmph. 🙂

    • Billy

      @ginidietrich I intend to be an uber-blogger. But there is 10 of this and 5 of that and the lists keep coming without let up. I understand that there will be fundamental content these lists will have; and I know that I will want to have them. The problem is not enough conversation and too much of these lists, many broadcast automatically several times during the day so as to “catch” as many eyes as possible, fill the twitter count up…. and so on. Today I actually caught a conversation that you instigated: worth the wait (don’t go into Gap stores period).
      I follow the gist of things: reading Problogger, Copyblogger and several other bloggers. So yes I look and learn from the lists. But I am still here for the conversation and to discover a market and enjoy the social exchange.
      Thanks for replying and talking. I always look for your posts

  • Billy

    This is what a blog is supposed to do: get the conversation started. That is what I wanted to see, someone who got the dang thing going!

  • sydcon_mktg

    While I really don’t care for the new logo, I really do not think it will harm their business. In the early stages it may improve their business since it may bring back lost customers to take another look or bring in new customers for the same reason, you know just to see what all the fuss is about.

    Ultimately I a logo isn’t going to make or break the business. If people love GAP jeans with the old logo they are going to love GAP jeans with the new logo. Now on the other hand, if they put that new logo on say hoodies, people may not be so inclined to purchase one from a style point of view. But, if the quality of the product and customer service remains the same or improves the logo what matter a bit down the road.

    Their logo design will not affect how their website functions, so their online business wont take a hit, the new logo on the outside of the building wont change the clothes on the rack, so the Gap will go on. I can’t say I agree with the comment below that the brand is now cheapened. If you won’t shop their because the big, blue square is now a smaller blue square, perhaps you the brand was loosing its appeal to you before the change.

    And, Gini, I agree that in this ever changing economy and world of technology and business risk need to be taken, those who stick their feet in the cement and don’t look forward will be left behind. Experiments don’t always work, but you can’t be afraid to try!

    • GiniDietrich

      @sydcon_mktg I agree 1,000 percent about the brand not being cheapened or people not wanting to shop there because the logo has changed. But do you think @RachaelSmith is right and the clothes with the old logo will now be on sale?!?

    • sydcon_mktg

      @ginidietrich @RachaelSmith Well I was just coming here to say, possibly… especially on athletic apparel (hoodies, etc) but never mind, if they are reverting back, not happening! Geez! Stick to your guns!

  • patrickreyes

    If you ask me, people get too hung up on logos. Yes they have relevance to a brand but at the end of the day, it’s the product (and often times the customer experience) you buy versus the logo.

    I equate this to the uniform changes Michigan State has gone through over the past few years. At the end of the day, if the product on the field equates to winning, then people will continue to buy the product.

    Given that, I still think brands do need to take a look at their logos to see if they are relevant and then change as necessary. Yes there will be some purists who think logos should never change but at the end of the day, are they “changing” or just “evolving”?

    • GiniDietrich

      @patrickreyes PR! You must be settled into your new job to be commenting on the blog again! YAY! But, I’m disturbed. Why are you even paying attention to what they football players are wearing?

    • patrickreyes

      @ginidietrich I am definitely settled and eager to get back into providing commentary to your blog! It’s been waaaaayyyy too long!

      To answer your question…when your team hasn’t given you much to pay attention to on the field for a while the multiple uniform changes begin to be the focus.

    • GiniDietrich

      @patrickreyes HAHAHA! I’m glad I didn’t have to say it! But BOTH the Lions and MSU won this weekend. You must be on cloud nine. I should ask for something.

    • PatrickReyes

      @ginidietrich I just sent you something. Gap is rethinking the logo change!

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention New Gap Logo Deserves Applause | Spin Sucks --

  • GiniDietrich

    Oh for heaven’s sake! @PatrickReyes just sent me this link – Apparently in 30 minutes, Gap is going to announce they’re going back to their old logo. Now I’m with @bricefaubel. Just stick with your stinking decision!

    • CarmenKrushas

      @ginidietrich @PatrickReyes @bricefaubel. I know!!! Who is advising this poor company?! A bunch of egg on their face and for no reason.

  • TMNinja

    What? They went back?

    Those flip-floppers!

    • @TMNinja I just heard that, too. At least the part of our hearts that cling to familiarity will be happy.

  • While I preferred the original version, I was surprised to see the outpouring of what was essentially “hate” by a lot of folks who should know better.

    (I’m not talking about Umair – he’s just someone who likes to hear himself talk).

    So you don’t like it – fine, tweet that and be done with it. Unless you’re a brand strategist or creative designer, then all you have is an opinion of your personal preference.

    Sadly, social media seems to have given a lot of people a feeling of their own self-importance. Oh well…

    • Billy

      @DannyBrown Hello DannyBrown. I enjoyed the fact that conversation took place after the post. Still is in fact. You encouraged me when I started online with twitter, and this article from Gini did the same. See you later in the stream. Billy

    • @Billy Always the sign of a great blog, Billy, the ability to keep the discussion going. And @ginidietrich and the Spin Sucks crew are masters of it. 🙂

      Cheers sir, see you soon 🙂

  • MikeLangford

    This hoopla over the Gap’s logo has the same stink as the Motrin Mom’s insanity. A bunch of people, who likely are not even customers of the brand, getting worked up into a lather about something so trivial that the general public didn’t even know it was going on. But, because they are on Twitter and tweeting up a storm about it the brand freaks out and overreacts.

    Take a look at Diane Hessan’s, CEO of Communispace, first bullet point in her post about “Transformations in Next Generation Research.”

    Seems to me that brand managers need to start taking lessons from major league baseball general managers like Theo Epstein. Don’t be tone deaf to public opinion but don’t be whipsawed by it either. In the end, your fans/customers will be happy if you produce a great product or service.

    • @MikeLangford Couldn’t agree more, Mike. Seems to me that a lot of what social media is now doing is turning platforms into social MEdia – what can “I” do to feel important? Meh.

  • Pingback: New Gap Logo | US Blog News()

  • Pingback: New Gap Logo | News Apply()

  • myleftone

    If the new logo was part of a campaign to reach new customers, great. Eventually, any brand gets tired and should be refreshed. At the most detailed level, this means an overhaul of the service and product offerings. For most businesses, it means new messaging. At the lowest level, change the logo. Then buckle to those who complain. I’m guessing the loudest complainers don’t shop at the Gap and will continue not to. And the brand has lost a chance to reach a new audience. Fail all around.

  • Pingback: New Gap Logo | News For Us()

  • Pingback: New Gap Logo | News Apps()

  • Pingback: New Gap Logo | News Databanks()

  • Pingback: New Gap Logo | News Think()

  • Pingback: New Gap Logo | US Journals()

  • Pingback: New Gap Logo | White News()

  • FashionistaChik

    I believe the uproar is more about brand recognition than changing technology. The Gap brand represents function, quality and “Classic” American image. Yes, the current trends are growth, technology and innovation. But there is something about feeling safe and familiar. As a part of generation X, I truly appreciate growth and change. Yet, I am also concerned about the ideas that what is old and familiar is no longer useful. #imjustayin

  • Like what @myleftone said, if it was an outreach to customers that’s awesome. I honestly wonder if you could ever have too much customer involvement/outreach in the sense of empowering them with a reasonable sense of ownership. Customers eat up every opportunity to have their voices heard and from the sound of it, this was a great campaign to do so.

    As far as sales go related to the new logo, I think you’re right Gini: it’s not going to have the dramatic impact, if any, that many people are calling for.

    But I’ll be perfectly honest: Personally, I feel like the logo was a significant downgrade aesthetically. It looks like it was made on Word ’97. But a logo doesn’t make a brand, and Gap isn’t going anywhere.

    • FashionistaChik

      @JMattHicks @myleftone I disagree a logo can very much make a brand. Buying decision are based on how things make us feel. A logo can evoke feelings and emotions.

    • @FashionistaChik @myleftone Not to be “that guy,” but I disagree.

      The branding and marketing makes the logo more than the logo alone makes the brand. Logos evoke emotions/feelings more because of branding/marketing than simply colors of font simplicity. I’ll agree, first impressions are often just the logo, but I’d be willing to say that with an established brand like the Gap or a brand-new product, the emotion/feeling is already established or will be from the get-go with a brand new company via branding.

    • FashionistaChik

      @JMattHicks @myleftone I can appreciate your position but I believe its situations specific. May I ask, what feeling, emotions or inference do you draw from my logo?

  • BobReed

    All this passionate conversation over a logo. I think this helps illustrate that customers do “own” brands.

  • Pingback: The GAP in the PR vs. Sales Game: The Buyers decide | Marketing, Public Relations and Social Media Blog | Atlanta, GA()

  • jnguyen21

    Thanks Gini for this great article. With all this conversation about the Gap, they did one thing perfectly: getting people to talk about them again. This was a clever PR tactic. It pretty much sums up this definition. They considered public opinion and they’ve earned/kept their understanding and acceptance by reverting to their old logo.

    Public relations is a management function which evaluates public attitudes, identifies the policies and procedures of an individual or an organization with the public interest, and plans, executes and evaluates a program of action to earn public understanding and acceptance.

    • GiniDietrich

      @jnguyen21 I’d be willing to bet the PR they got was accidental, though you’re right about it working!

    • 3HatsComm

      @ginidietrich @jnguyen21 Funny Gini, I just noticed that Belk (a Southern department store chain) just revamped their logo, tagline but I have NOT seen any chatter about it either. FWIW.

  • Pingback: Why Gap Should Have Stayed With the New Logo « The Lebanexican()

  • Lebanexican

    I’m so glad to see that I’m not the only one who appreciated that the Gap took a big risk in unveiling a new logo. You’re right, while we applaud companies that take risks in theory, when one actually takes a big risk, everyone is jeering at their attempt. And yes, I wish they would have stuck with it.

  • Pingback: Lowe's Caves to Pressure without Strategy | Spin Sucks()

  • Pingback: Lowe’s Caves to Pressure without Strategy « MindCorp | Newsfeed()