Outrage in the blogosphere does not represent the general public, or the customer.
The botched Gap retail rebranding, launched October 4 and withdrawn October 11, happened when a company’s brand management team was bogged down by over-zealous bloggers from the design community. (Lack of an elaborate implementation discipline was also reason for aborting this ill-prepared launch.)
The brand management team at the Gap did not have sufficient stamina to ignore these negative reactions. I believe they should have stuck with their original launch plan, and gone ahead with the planned implementation.
One needs to take a step back and put all those blog comments in perspective. The overwhelming majority of the bloggers work in the (graphic) design profession and my guess is that very few represent the actual Gap consumer. It is unbelievable that a supposedly educated brand management team at Gap, Inc. was intimidated by critics who were only interested in esoteric and sentimental details such as liking or not liking Helvetica, shading or not shading, and who completely ignored the reason of this change: to increase the visual real estate of the “Gap” component of the brand identifier. The marketing objectives were to capitalize on the 1970s visual heritage of a Helvetica-dominated retail environment, and to increase the presence of the “Gap” name. That approach fits right into the look and feel of the Gap brand and its current shop window appearance. The new brand identifier is a logical typographical addition to branding which has been pretty consistent throughout the past 40 years, as the photos below show.
Gap store in Los Angeles, CA, 1977
Gap store in New York, NY 2010
The concept of this brand identifier is a logical step, when seen in the overall Gap retail environment.
By Scott Lerman
24 OCT 2010, 20:41 GMT
A failure of will followed by a panicked attempt to crowdsource something the crowd might like. I don’t think this simply lacked “implementation discipline.” Everything about this felt amateurish and reactive. As for it being a “logical next step” it’s hard to judge without strategic criteria.
But let’s be honest. While some of the bile directed at the Gap’s new logo was the usual Internet nonsense, it also reflected a valid undercurrent of fear in the design community. As larger companies casually release major identity redesigns and turn to crowdsourced contests for “fresh” solutions, the pros have reason to feel insulted, even threatened.
By Scott Lerman
24 OCT 2010, 21:23 GMT
BTW, I’ve added the stillborn Gap logo to this explorable (Gigapan) image of dozens of DEAD BRANDS.
http://www.gigapan.org/gigapans/62182/
By Tony Spaeth
24 OCT 2010, 23:51 GMT
Damned if I can find it, Scott. Give us a reference point, like… 3rd tomb up from the dog’s mouth?
And New Gap in the Dead Brands cemetary? Maybe in the ”Stillborn Rebrandings” section.
Roger’s point is valid. Gap is to be faulted more for its lack of launch planning (and communication) than for its design strategy; that we cannot judge, as you noted, being outsiders.
Most importantly: The power of the Internet (to enable instant and massive design critiques) is something we must all learn to anticipate. Make it good to begin with, then launch it with both positioning and conviction.
By Alina Wheeler
25 OCT 2010, 16:30 GMT
The GAP fiasco brings up a number of questions:
Was there a strategic decision about whether the revitalization should be evolutionary or revolutionary? How did the research on brand equity inform the GAP decision makers?
Does the new world demand a much more thoughtful and multichannel launch strategy?
As Dan Dimmock suggested I believe, was this more of a communication about consumers lackluster feeling of loyalty to the brand?
Crowdsourcing is here to stay. User generated content is evolving to user generated creativity, creative direction, and criticism. When should crowdsourcing be used as a strategy and when does it dilute the brand?
Tropicana first. Then this. Best practices, thought leadership and strategic brand strategy and design are needed more than ever.
By Marco Rezende
25 OCT 2010, 18:54 GMT
The GAP brand power, as many other effective brands, is not driven by a logo, Helvetica, Bodoni or whatever typeface or visual gimnick. The GAP team lost a big opportunity: show to the fashion industry and to consumers that GAP is a spirit, a soul to be dressed, a way of life more than a logo design.
By Marius Ursache
26 OCT 2010, 10:52 GMT
I agree that GAP was an embarrassing fiasco.
However, since Alina mentioned Tropicana, I want to share my thoughts on the difference between the two situations.
GAP was clearly a stupid move, or it got out of control (if there was any strategy at all in the beginning).
My opinion on Tropicana is against the public trend. From what I know, the marketing strategy was to compete with private label brands which were gaining serious market share. Arnell’s design was on brief–at least that’s my personal view. When the new design got out and faced public wrath, Tropicana panicked and withdrew the new packaging–which I think was against the initial strategic approach.
I see both these failures more as a leadership problem than a strategic one.
By Alina Wheeler
26 OCT 2010, 15:33 GMT
Good points Marius about the difference. I do not have the inside perspective about the teams and strategies, but what I do know, is that these projects taint the public perception of branding and design firms through association. Mind the GAP… the conversation about the GAP revitalization and launch (or lack of launch) strategy has entered every single meeting for brands large and small.
By Scott Lerman
01 NOV 2010, 21:52 GMT
[SPOILER ALERT!] Tony, you’ll find the newly deceased Gap logo on the hip of the angel. I’ve even created a snapshot that will zoom you right there! Now find the other 50 or so dead brands…
http://www.gigapan.org/gigapans/62182/
By Brian Weck
05 DEC 2011, 20:20 GMT
Horrendous revamp, IMO.