CR Blog

Gap to pull new logo

Graphic Design

Posted by Patrick Burgoyne, 12 October 2010, 9:04    Permalink    Comments (73)

Gap North America president Marka Hansen has confirmed that the company is to abandon the new logo launched last week after it attracted a storm of criticism

The new logo was created by New York consultancy Laird & Partners. After it appeared unannounced on Gap's website there was much speculation over whether it was genuine or simply a means of generating debate. However, Hansen appeared to confirm that the logo was genuine in a piece for the Huffington Post last week in which she said that "We chose this design as it's more contemporary and current. It honors our heritage through the blue box while still taking it forward."

It was then suggested that Gap customers could join in the debate around the new design by suggesting their own versions: "Now, given the passionate outpouring from customers that followed, we've decided to engage in the dialogue, take their feedback on board and work together as we move ahead and evolve to the next phase of Gap," Hansen said. "...We plan to ask people to share their designs with us as well...We'll explain specifics on how everyone can share designs in a few days."

Overnight, however, AdAge has reported that Gap will be returning to its old design. This was confirmed in the following statement from Hansen:

"Since we rolled out an updated version of our logo last week on our Website, we've seen an outpouring of comments from customers and the online community in support of the iconic blue box logo.

"Last week, we moved quickly to address the feedback and began exploring how we could tap into all of the passion. Ultimately, we've learned just how much energy there is around our brand. All roads were leading us back to the blue box, so we've made the decision not to use the new logo on gap.com any further.

"At Gap brand, our customers have always come first. We've been listening to and watching all of the comments this past week. We heard them say over and over again they are passionate about our blue box logo, and they want it back. So we've made the decision to do just that – we will bring it back across all channels.

"In the meantime, the website will go back to our iconic blue box logo and, for Holiday, we'll turn our blue box red for our seasonal campaign.

"We've learned a lot in this process. And we are clear that we did not go about this in the right way. We recognize that we missed the opportunity to engage with the online community. This wasn't the right project at the right time for crowd sourcing.

"There may be a time to evolve our logo, but if and when that time comes, we'll handle it in a different way."

This is the second time that a major US-based brand has retreated from a redesign in the face of online opposition, after Tropicana famously pulled its new Arnell-designed packaging.

So what's the lesson here? Has Gap shown an admirable ability to listen to its customers or has it merely bowed to mob rule – assuming that the whole thing wasn't simply a giant PR stunt.

Regular readers of this blog will know that change is almost always met with hostility online, even (especially) from fellow designers. But often the same work that was openly derided becomes years, even months later, first accepted and then loved. It takes time for people to get used to the new. The Guardian redesign, for example, was the subject of hundreds of hysterically critical online comments: a year later it won a D&AD Gold (not that D&AD is the be-all and end-all in these matters). And when the Cadbury Gorilla ad was first screened internally to the company's senior management, the marketing director was told in no uncertain terms that the commercial would never be allowed to see the light of day. Once it was eventually screened, Dairy Milk sales shot up, it generated a return on investment about three times the average and suddenly Cadbury was telling everyone how much they loved it.

The new Gap Logo may not have been very well designed but, assuming we haven't all been had, a precedent has been set that must be worrying for anyone involved in this business. In this case, negative reaction may have been justified but many other landmark projects would have been similarly killed if a brave client hadn't ridden out the first waves of criticism. If clients are going to fold at the first negative Tweet, or if a self-selecting, vociferous minority are allowed to hold sway, what chance has any challenging or genuinely radical work of getting through in the future?

And a word of sympathy too for Laird & Partners. Presumably they would have presented many different solutions. Gap chose this one. Now Laird has been hung out to dry.

What a mess.

Incidentally, Brand New has a great summary of 'Gapgate' so far here

73 Comments

I can't tell whether it was weak design agency execution + great marketing and PR, or a stunt from day one. Either way, I doubt the 'brand' or sales will be negatively effected.
Mat Dolphin
2010-10-12 11:09:15


Forget the logo, I'm more concerned about the fact that Gap have decided to rebrand that bit at the end of the year as simply "Holiday".
Daniel
2010-10-12 11:10:23


Doesn't this also show how much of "what the client wants" we allow. How on earth did the designers let them do this to begin with - why did they present this at all!
Ebi Atawodi
2010-10-12 11:20:25


I guess Bruno Maag will be happy....another logo dismissed using Helvetica.
bluepigcreative
2010-10-12 11:21:48


I think it is important to remember that most likely someone from Laird & Partners said this was a bad idea. I can imagine Gaps management being very forceful in their decision to use the Helvetica logo and probably water-downed a good a idea to Helvetica. (Well I hope that was the case)
Robert
2010-10-12 11:23:56


What is "Holiday"??

You mean CHRISTMAS!?
Robert
2010-10-12 11:26:15


We live in interesting times. When your audience is more visually literate than your brand guardians then everything turns on it's head.

But crowd sourcing isn't the answer. In the same way that it would be wrong for the Times or the Guardian (or the BBC for that matter) to crowd source its content, we need professionals to actually do the work.

For those professionals in the visual communication business, it's becoming painfully clear that the bar is rising faster and faster.

There's no where to hide!
Matt Cooper
2010-10-12 11:29:38


They tried a lazy American Apparel rip off and it backfired. Lazy client+ lazy agency.
mark
2010-10-12 11:34:59


PR stunt... working well.
Chris
2010-10-12 12:26:39


We're just amazed that a company such as GAP could make such a basic branding mistake. Look at an organisation such as Shell and it's virtually impossible to see how their branding has changed over the past 100 years. That's how you develop your branding not a sudden change like this - not unless you are trying to hide something!
AnsteyDesign
2010-10-12 12:43:30


I'd agree. It's got to be a pr stunt... that is working VERY well!
photography leicester
2010-10-12 12:57:57


I still think it was all a PR stunt, and guess what... it still has people talking and posting about it.
Stripeyhorse
2010-10-12 13:03:10


publicity stunt - the new logo is deliberatly terrible to provoke controvosy
ben
2010-10-12 13:22:14


If I didn't know any better I would think it was April 1st?
David Lewis
2010-10-12 13:28:32


It would be interesting to see what other proposals, if any, were put forward. Let's see what was turned down in favor of this one…
Tony Clarkson
2010-10-12 13:28:38


"And a word of sympathy too for Laird & Partners. Presumably they would have presented many different solutions."

Surely they only showed what they felt were the best solutions to the brief? As creatives don't we always come up with a whole host of sketches and scamps in the creative process before filtering those initial ideas to the strongest few... and then filtering again to those that actually have legs and will work? Only then do we present to a client - we don't throw our sketch books down and say 'pick one'.

It beggars belief that the solution chosen was ever shown to the client.

The bigger issue is that Gap desperately needed something to re-invograte their business and their well established (and actually incredibly recognisable) brand. Obviously they felt the brand was the first place to start, but this does nothing to help revitalise them, nor does it respect the past or look forward with a fresh perspective.

As usual in cases like this it just goes to show that it's not the size / reputation of both the client or the creative source that counts - it's all about ideas.
PeeJay
2010-10-12 13:28:43


It must be a PR stunt. Surely a new Gap logo would be ... beige.
Dr Black
2010-10-12 13:30:20


Branding rule no 1. If its not broken don't fix it. Gap has worldwide consumer recognition why meddle with an iconic mark. Can you imagine BMW, Nike, Apple changing their identity in such a significant way. It just demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of how brands work and how the whole positioning and language can evolve successfully within the envelope of a strong identity. Just talk to Sir Terry Leahy.

Tony Lorenz, CDT
Tony Lorenz
2010-10-12 13:31:02


if i aint broke dont fix it
classicViralVids
2010-10-12 13:34:08


Def. a marketing stunt. 'The GAP' brand is pretty strong and still filling the generation gap.
Marianne McDougall
2010-10-12 13:38:25


It could be a PR exercise. But I doubt it. This is a major global brand and this could have so easily backfired. I just don't buy GAP gambling their entire brand equity on a PR stunt.

What it does show is the trend, or more specifically, the power of the digital world to influence the outcome of marketing/design/brand campaigns. As much as it is impressive, it is setting a precedent that could have some real negative effects in the future. The internet is a good example of that. An environment in which the user is both reader and author of its content. Explains why most, if not nearly all of it, is completely useless.

(I will now get off my soap box and take some more flu tablets)
RayRayuk
2010-10-12 13:41:54


Wow that's a bad rebranding effort! and on that basis i'd say it's a blatent PR stunt in my opinion.
And it's working too (see above)....

Not loving the backdoor crowdsourcing idea tho. Not brave enough to offer it out to crowdsourcing in the first place as aware of the comeback from the design community they would receive so have disguised it with this PR Stunt to suggest they haven't and basically said: 'Well come on everyone we've had a go, see if you can do any better (but dont whatever you do, expect to be paid for it!)'

Tut tut! Won't be giving them the credit they don't deserve on my blog.
Dave Sweeney
2010-10-12 13:44:43


publicity stunt - the new logo is deliberatly terrible to provoke controvosy
ben
2010-10-12 13:47:34


I don't like to get involved in hype but its clear that the old Gap logo is better. Fck this 'Helvetica the whole world' crap.
Diaghe
2010-10-12 13:48:30


"We're just amazed that a company such as GAP could make such a basic branding mistake. " They don't. This was clearly a publicity stunt from day one that has given them a massive amount of brand awareness for FREE. Seriously people. How naive do you want to be?
Chris
2010-10-12 14:05:20


If you still use a first generation iPod, that's not considered cool and you probably want to upgrade to the latest version as soon as you can afford it. And if you have clothes that have the old GAP logo in, you'll probably lose a bit of street cred and buy new as soon as you can.

Maybe this was a short term 'holiday' sales initiative that someone got cold feet over. That would explain why the new logo looks like it does - because no one actually cared what it looked like as it wasn't going to stay for long anyway. After the 'holiday' season, guess what, the original logo would be back.

Well that's my conspiracy theory.
Startledfish
2010-10-12 14:11:22


Someone please tell me this is a design hoax, or a work-in-progress strategy to poll valued market research from social networks. Either way, I am sad that both might appear to mock the design profession.
Chris D
2010-10-12 14:11:35


PR stunt or not it is simply a bad idea. The new logo falls in to the category of really bad art college design and a conformity process employed by weak marketing people who think that focus groups have the answers- the true answer is their lack of design knowledge and the process that makes good design instinctive. Mood board mentality. If it was a PR stunt then it is also playing with fire. The board of Gap need to get real and should not play with what they have even if the company is under fire from an ethical point of view. Given this as is fact attached to the Gap brand they are foolish in believing this graphic solution can solve the problem. It is the usual let's get some agency to resolve our problem through a rebrand. Do not use a scapegoat solution through a graphic workout. It is appalling for a company that needs to sort out its ethical and product reality not a disguise solution. The public are not stupid.
Alan McDougall
2010-10-12 14:18:40


this is a perfect example of how the "new"corporate america works. this is just terrible, utilitarian is a beautiful thing BUT it is something that is not, in any way, understood by the american corporate culture
gb
2010-10-12 14:20:01


publicity stunt - the new logo is deliberatly terrible to provoke controvosy
ben
2010-10-12 14:35:11


Anyone remember talking about Gap in the last decade? Me neither.

Gap was a brand that was simply just another. Now, apparently, it is cherished and loved passionately. And who tells us this?...
Jon Lucas
2010-10-12 14:50:56


Great viral marketing job. Has got us all talking at any rate. ;-)
Christian Guthier
2010-10-12 14:55:00


The author is a bit naive in regards to 'innovation'. This logo is not innovation and people (professionals but also enthusiasts) showed that they distinguish good design from bad design.



Don't defend the agency also - if they showed only this logo they are lame. If they showed lot's of different ones - they are still lame. Don't know why? Then, sorry, you shouldn't write for CR!
ekhmmm
2010-10-12 15:00:00


who actually cares? Its just a logo. In the grand scheme of things, gap made a naff logo, regretted it, and changed it back. Like 'Tony Lorenz' said above, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Simple enough. A few jokes are cracked, Their brand positioning stays in more or less the same place, this story becomes old news, we all move on.
Sam
2010-10-12 15:05:00


Agree with 'ben' here. Doesn't look or feel genuine purely because it is so dreadful.

A gradient tint box placed behind the letter P? Would be amazed if Gap's design police would ever allow such a poorly executed logo beyond initial presentation stage.

Anyone know what Laird & Partners have had to say?
Mac
2010-10-12 15:24:40


Basically Gap asked the agency for American Apparel and got it - with a blue box. You can see from the new Gap ad posters (in NY) they're almost identical to American Apparel without the 15 year olds in underwear.
Andrew
2010-10-12 15:35:32


The design of the Gap brandmark/logo is irrespective, but encourages a more interesting debate.

Responding to the comments of 2000 (?) people and then deciding to pull the project is disastrous – is this how design research is now going to be conducted? Couple this with the story in Design Week recently of Vogel Bread asking people to choose whether they prefer the revolutionary or the evolutionary pack design, and the future seems a little bleak for design companies.
(members only) http://www.designweek.co.uk/bb-studio-bakes-new-look-for-vogels-bread-packaging/3017987.article


This only stands to contribute to brands fear of taking any sort of risk with what they do. I hope that agencies and brands will stand by their projects without caving in to the petty comments (demands) of social media.
Gregg
2010-10-12 15:37:57


Agree with 'ben' here. Doesn't look or feel genuine purely because it is so dreadful.

A gradient tint box placed behind the letter P? Would be amazed if Gap's design police would ever allow such a poorly executed logo beyond initial presentation stage.

Anyone know what Laird & Partners have had to say?
Mac
2010-10-12 15:48:35


Whether this new design has been vilified by a small or large number of Gap customers and others is not important. Every instance of communication, however insignificant, whether it is positive or negative, is an opportunity to express a brands values: “Gap is an open and caring entity that has positive values. We listen to you, value you, because you are not just a consumer but an individual. Thank you for being you. To be honest, we’re new at this game and are not a huge business concerned with making profit, but a collection of people, people just like you. Like you we want to have meaning in our lives and we are passionate about making a better world, profit is just the result of us doing this so well…” and so on and so on.

Had the new design been innovative and been enthusiastically embraced by everyone, it would have made no difference from a PR/marketing perspective but just a different opportunity to trot out brand values: “Gap is an open and caring entity that has positive values. We are happy you like our new logo because you are not just a consumer but an individual…” and so on and so on.

As comedian Stewart Lee puts it, ‘The shear transparent naked dishonest hypocrisy of even imaging for a moment that such things exist as the values of [Gap]’.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IE0kSZmW6g

This leads to speculation that the whole thing may have been a clever piece of PR/marketing, as by noted above by Patrick and others here. What is interesting is how much that correlates with the romantic ideals of so many hollywood narratives:

1.
We’re introduced to mild-mannered everyman (invariably male/masculine) who has very basic needs or simple task to achieve. Things that disrupt his mild-mannered demeanour results in idiosyncratic outbursts (invariably caused by ‘the other’, usually portrayed by a female/feminine identity (ex wife etc.)) that set us against him.

= Bland Gap Logo is ‘born’.

2.
Then Something traumatic/violent happens (usually purportrated by an Englishman, European or some other kind of Alien villain but it must be non-American).

= Gap Logo is ‘tampered’ with by the cold, calculating hands of Designers.

3.
Mild mannered everyman overcomes this traumatic event by building on what was previously considered their weakness. The ‘true’ unselfish identity of our hero is unveiled and we now appreciate their idiosyncrasies in a way we had not previously.

= Gap Logo returns triumphant “Yippee ki-yay MF!”


However despite the protagonist encountering such dramatic events they remain the same. It is the other characters, and we the viewer, that come to see their idiosyncratic outbursts as somehow charming and/or valuable.

Similarly the old Gap logo is now seen in a different light. Our perceptions of an uninteresting, bland original are now set to be much more positive (either authentically or ironically) than they were a week ago. We have been manipulated, and whether it was deliberate or not is of little concern. Like our current war on terror, the result outweighs any concern for process. And this proves one thing, Gap were never really interested in what their customers thought but in cultivating affection for a brand in order to secure profit.
John McClane
2010-10-12 16:07:08


Hang on - the majority of the responses above appear to be missing the point; it's not whether the re-brand is any good, it's the fact that Gap (appear to) have retreated in the face of on-line criticism. On a related note, I'm glad that the 2012 Olympic Commitee had the guts to keep with their brand identity in the face of similarly fierce criticism from the "I could have done better than that" brigade.

p.s. I think the axed Gap logo is rubbish too.
Craig Burston
2010-10-12 16:21:57


This is what happens when you have to many yes men about... Don't get me wrong it could do we a refresh.. just the typeface perhaps but it is a poor design
Jordan Rzymski
2010-10-12 16:26:53


Simply, good riddance
Jitesh Patel
2010-10-12 16:36:24


Assuming this isn't a hoax, which it could well be, it's worth considering how Laird & Partners were briefed before jumping on them as a 'lazy agency'. Gap have been using Helvetica on all instore comms for ages so I can perfectly imagine how the thing went down.

The marketing people said 'Logo refresh for GAP, using Helvetica 75 whilst retaining our blue box heritage'. What do you do from there? The kerning is fine, so where does the box go? We don't like it because we would have done it differently, but we haven't seen the brief.
Matt S
2010-10-12 16:37:33


Great PR, stirring up debate and thus thrusting the GAP brand into the limelight.
And for what it's worth I think the original is a great brand, classic and will not be out-dated for a while yet...
Mei
2010-10-12 16:41:03


I would say this has to be a PR stunt, as agreed above the new logo is far too poor and obvious.
The only factor that sways me is it will have a massive negative effect on Laird & Partners I would have thought.
Aleks James
2010-10-12 16:41:12


Wow that's a bad rebranding effort! and on that basis i'd say it's a blatent PR stunt in my opinion.
And it's working too (see above)....

Not loving the backdoor crowdsourcing idea tho. Not brave enough to offer it out to crowdsourcing in the first place as aware of the comeback from the design community they would receive so have disguised it with this PR Stunt to suggest they haven't and basically said: 'Well come on everyone we've had a go, see if you can do any better (but dont whatever you do, expect to be paid for it!)'

Tut tut! Won't be giving them the credit they don't deserve on my blog.
Dave Sweeney
2010-10-12 16:51:37


Sounds like when coke tried to roll out "New Coke". Fail. It don't need fixin if it ain't broke.
Tyler
2010-10-12 16:53:19


I don't think its a PR stunt. GAP are to bland (just like their clothes) to do anything like that!!
Paul
2010-10-12 17:11:11


It would be interesting to see what other proposals, if any, were put forward. Let's see what was turned down in favor of this one…
Tony Clarkson
2010-10-12 17:14:05


This had to be a PR stunt. The logo was poorly designed and poorly executed. I can't believe that an agency would even put this out as one of their concepts much less make it the final product. Hideous!
bdhDESIGN
2010-10-12 18:18:57


Good decision! I didn't like it at all.
Bingo
2010-10-12 19:14:44


Enough about the logo...
I was curious, so I went to Laird & Partners to view their GAP work.

Peculiar... I went to the Gap section and thought I was in the American Apparel Section (hint... they don't do both...).

Homogeneity, ya gotta love it...
Mickrock
2010-10-12 21:26:20


I think the whole incident is unfortunate. There are several things I personally would like to know. Among them, what percentage of the backlash was from designers and what percentage was from the average Gap consumer? Is there any way to find out? But more troublesome at least for me, is GAP going back and showing no backbone or conviction on the new —however ugly it might have been— direction. If they picked this identity from say 2 others, why not defend their direction and show more conviction? And I also worry about the designers... what do they have to say about all this? Why have they not said anything?
Alma
2010-10-12 21:52:02


Are people genuinely suggesting this is a PR stunt? Gap wants to sell clothes, not provoke discussions about branding.
rp
2010-10-12 22:11:09


If nothing else it's provided a popular topic of discussion on our forums!
http://www.designforums.co.uk/logos-identity-branding/6255-new-gap-logo.html
Greg Findley
2010-10-13 09:49:05


It's difficult to know if this is actually a PR stunt or not, but you just have to look at the number of posts on CR and numerous other design blogs to see that it has provoked a reaction, good or bad. So one could argue that, despite looking like a Windows95 WordArt reject, it is actually an effective logo.

What confuses me the most, though, is the apparent need for GAP to change their logo in the first place. GAP, although probably being a slightly smaller brand than the likes of Nike and Adidas, have a logo that is so recognisable and established, like the aforementioned, and probably doesn't even need updating for a long long time, if ever.
Joel
2010-10-13 10:19:10


Both logos are awful
emekanjodi
2010-10-13 10:23:21


Why change the logo. It obviously works. Sensible and safe logo for sensible and safe clothes. As for the new proposed logo, Gap could have saved $$$$ and gone to vista print.
Bo Davis
2010-10-13 12:45:49


I'm trying to imagine the scenario in which this might have been proposed as a PR stunt. Gap: Hey, we have an idea! Let's make a really bad logo and then, when everyone's talking about how stupid we are, we'll backtrack and say that we've capitulated to our customers. It will magically turn our image from safe to AWESOME. Laird & Partners: Sure, we're happy to attach our name to something that will go down in history as a definitive example of poor re-branding, studied by designers everywhere. We have too many clients anyway.

Nope. Someone thought this was a good idea.
rp
2010-10-13 15:45:33


Don't believe the hype! It has fake all over it, they're both (designer & client) slapping each other on the backs for a PR stunt or even viral exploit that went 'far further' than expected... bravo!

I seriously don't believe the logo for one minute, nobody does, enough said.
Hugo
2010-10-13 16:21:04


Don't believe the hype! It has fake all over it, they're both (designer & client) slapping each other on the backs for a PR stunt or even viral exploit that went 'far further' than expected... bravo!

I seriously don't believe the logo for one minute, nobody does, enough said.
Hugo
2010-10-13 17:15:39


I'd certainly //like// to think that the new logo was a fake, but there've been too many "genuine" awful rebrandings to be sure. Remember when Swissair rebranded as "sair"? And then had to change everything back when they realised that the new name was really awful? Remember when marketing consultants advised the UK Post Office that it was a good idea to spend money changing their high-visibility shop signs from "Post Office Red" to dark green?

My local Currys electrical store still has its shop sign with the "rebranded" colours of dark red against dark blue ... with the result that the damned sign is almost unreadable. Their website logo is now //white// against dark blue, presumably because their website people knew enough about human colour vision to be able to point out that human visual shape-recognition operates on light-intensity rather than hue, and the logo disappeared in monochrome. Duh.

So just because a rebranding is stupid, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's not genuine. Consultancies are in the business of making money, and it's difficult to charge a big fee and say, "You know what, the current logo is just fine and doesn't need changing".

Oh, and to anyone who thinks that the suggested replacement logo should have been given more of a chance, consider that if you reversed the thumgummy on the capital G, the new logo said "Crap". Not good.
Eric Baird
2010-10-14 03:05:00


That new adition to the new logo by you CR guys with the X is not bad though
skoupidiaris
2010-10-14 11:02:42


That new adition to the new logo by you CR guys with the X is not bad though
skoupidiaris
2010-10-14 11:45:40


Gap isn't my style, I like some items I have from Zara and Mexx and FCUK. But now this controversy, compels me to buy something Gap. The cancelled logo looks facebookish.
ando
2010-10-14 19:55:00


What's the big deal? It was only the other day that I was thinking that the GAP logo was starting to look horribly dated.
Flint & Tinder
2010-10-18 18:21:27


It must be a publicity stunt. The new logo with helvetica font is just horrible.
Definitely they have done this to come in limelight and its working very well...
Manik
2010-10-20 12:23:17


I agree with the comments regarding the simple change of a font that does not a logo make.
Over all, the failure of the new logo is linked to the fact that it looks like the logos of software or web-development firms. Too much so. Dare I say it reminds even of the "Windows" logo?
It clearly sugested another industry field altogether that is why it failed. I cannot see either why would a professional firm who designed this did not see the similarity.
It is easy to accuse them of an intentional publicity scandal, but I think sometimes even the most obvious facts skip attention, that ADHD syndrome we all have.

So I consider it a honest mistake and good job for the Gap marketing division who double checked the new logo's validity and did not just throw the entire future of such a huge company down the drain in the name of re-branding and creativity. Or lack there of creativity.
Alice
2010-10-26 09:25:38


To Mac and everyone claiming to be stunt they should read Aleks's comment too. Why would Laird & Partners risk their firm just to increase Gap's sales?

It is not stunt, it is mistake.
However I don't like the Gap logo, classical as it may be.
But I will continue to buy their skinny jeans if the quality remains good. Gap is selling clothes. It is material product. Logo or no logo they are what they sell. If I do not like their clothes they can claim they are classic all they want. I will not buy. On the contrary, as classic as claim to be, logo based, I except more because of experience.

Clothes design-wise yes I do think Gap should rebrand. The clothes not the logo. They should aim towards Zara style, follow the trends but still keep comfort as their key ingredient.

They should be able to sell office clothes too and more elegant ones.
This is what they should do - widen the market not play with logos.

Their key quality is the fact that people know Gap clothes come in soft good materials. This is the essence. With those materials and what they do with them I can not imagine how much do they sell in countries with tradition in Fashion like France or Italy, where people expect more than just good quality materials.

The money they wasted on Laird & Partners they should have invested in fashion designers and production studies to diversify their style.

I like graphic design but it is just words sometimes. Why did Gap waste money on publicity when the economy is shaky instead of encouraging the production sector? That is better because production can help economy of many countries that do not own publicity firms while also keep the sanity of the finance sector of the countries they do make the market studies.
Valerie
2010-10-26 10:23:22


Why change something that's working?! Only a few clothing companies have gotten the success and appeal this brand has acquired over the years, and now the president wanted to change for that "ugly monster"?! Please...leave the brand alone! And who's that agency???
Peter Tang
2010-10-28 01:07:08


the following statement is meant to be ambiguous!!!

-some one got paid for that s#!t you gotta be joking me!!!
judah
2010-11-12 01:55:00


Very often, these things are the result of an egocentric client who wants to make his own mark on the company.
First clue: the design is not very good. I see no stretch of the brand to embrace contemporary culture, speak to some change in expectations among a population of consumers, or really address any of the communicative issues a brand mark should. It looks like the old "my wife and I came up with this at the kitchen table last night".
Second clue: Helvetica: because it came with your home PC.
The agency is not always the bad guy
simpsonsr71
2010-11-13 18:13:08


Oh well, the truth is out. no PR stunt, this was a genuine re-brand attempt and Marka Hansen the head of Gap North America has quit her job following a fall in sales since the rebrand debacle.
simon ws
2011-02-02 19:11:25


Tell us what you think

What happens with my feedback?

We no longer require you to register and have a password in order to comment, simply fill in the form below. All comments are moderated so you may experience a short delay before your comment appears. CR encourages comments to be short and to the point. As a general rule, they should not run longer than the original post. Comments should show a courteous regard for the presence of other voices in the discussion. We reserve the right to edit or delete comments that do not adhere to this standard.

Get the RSS Feed
NULL