 |
 Gap Reverses Decision to Use New Logo10.12.10 at 9:50 am by Sara TackI know this brand isn’t specific to travel and tourism, but it is a testament to how strong a brand is. I thought this compelling and worth noting, and since I haven’t written in awhile I thought I’d share.
Last week when the Gap unveiled its new logo I sent this letter via email to their marketing department: October 7, 2010 Dear Gap, Very disappointed in your new logo design. Let's be blunt. It's too generic. For years now, the Gap has always had a unique edge which was reflected in your typeface/wordmark. The square blue shape had the ability to change color for promotional events, holidays, campaigns and seasons. The relationship between the size of the wordmark and the size of the square shape had plenty of space inside it to keep the logo in the clear and always on a pedestal no matter what the configuration. And the unique wordmark was always clearly unique. Long, edgy, a little flair and a unique style. The new logo uses Helvetica. While I love Helvetica and the Gap uses a lot of Helvetica as a campaign typeface, it didn't need to become the logo. Helvetica in campaigns was working with your existing logo. I am wondering if next time your creative department gets tired of using Helvetica, and starts to use a new typeface in campaigns, will it change the logo again? Helvetica is too generic for your logo and I am questioning the small transparent square behind it. It reminds me of squaring in a math problem. Why? Is this Gap x 2? Gap squared? Why did you change a great, well known logo with lots of ability to play in the sandbox with multiple styles as styles change over time. Isn't that what Gap clothing has always been about? Why did you change who you are?
Apparently, I was not the only one who felt a strong connection to the old brand, but even more, a stronger dislike for the new logo. The blogospheres went crazy with complaints as well as Gaps Facebook page. This morning the Gap announced it was going back to their ‘old’ logo. |
Brands belong to the customer, not the business.
Businesses often mistakenly believe their brand is just another asset, and they can do with it what they will. But change it at your peril. A business' brand is that business' face to the world - a visual reference point by the rest of the world to identify that business. Just like your face, you change it and people don't recognize you.
Take the strange case of Michael Jackson. His discomfort with who he is took the public shape of cutting the nose off his face - literally. He went from the attractive young black man the world loved, to being an off-putting freak show, which detracted from his musical gifts.
Micheal's face belonged to his fans. He changed it, and it alienated his public who felt they no longer knew him. Brands are the same way. Similar alienation has taken place over the years like when Datsun became Nissan, or more recently when Tropicana changed their iconic packaging from the orange with the straw placed in the center, to a picture of a glass of orange juice. Datsun fell from the #2 brand to #17, and bankruptcy; Tropicana lost the top slot as America's favorite orange juice.
The Gap's problems are they no longer know who they are. And changing their brand showed disrespect for the face that customer's had grown to love and enjoy. Their new logo symbolizes the gap businesses often have between wanting to have a relationship with their customers, or just selling them something for a profit. (yes, pun intended)
David is right and I think the customers spoke load and clear. Don't mess with the logo!!!
Since when do the masses know anything about design? The GAP caved because of public uproar but is that the way it should be? Sure the new logo was generified and unimaginative but the old one was nothing special either; it's just that people had become used to seeing it.
Unfortunately the generic design syndrome is pervasive what with web templates for anyone and clip art for the cheap and lazy.
It is my opinion, since you asked, that design should come from the intent of the client in concert with what s/he wants her/his customers' experiences to be. Not a bunch of text and shapes and colors slapped together to make something look "neat."
It is obvious that the new brand new brand logo for GAP was a victim of a corporate, heirarchical, bureaucratic, politically correct organization that was trying to please everyone and in the end pleased no one.
Let me offer a slightly different perspective. Certain logos are so thoroughly a part of an organization's brand identity as to be completely inseparable. Two that come to mind from the ski industry: Sugarloaf and Steamboat. These aren't mere logos - they're icons. They also share an important commonality:a timeless quality to the design (while neither would probably look exactly like they do if starting today, both would probably work). Therein lies part of the problem when re-branding an organization: creating design that can live for fifteen or twenty years - and doing so without pissing off those who, as David notes, actually own the brand. Usually, that involves careful modification of the existing logo, rather than complete rebuild. Here's an interesting look at the history of some tech company logos: http://www.neatorama.com/2008/02/07/the-evolution-of-tech-companies-logos/ Some have succeeded wildly. Others...? Gap has significant brand problems, many of which stem from issues much deeper than design (let's start with boring products and thoroughly indifferent salespeople). The current discussion is about one aspect of the brand identity - the logo - but I've not seen anything in the current kerfuffle that suggests that they're actually trying to re-build the brand where it truly counts: in the relationship with customers. All complicated, of course, by the fact that the new logo conveyed nothing about core values, said nothing about who they are or what they do, and was butt-ugly to boot (this last being a question of taste, but one which appears to be shared by many).
Skip, you mention that magic word which is Key: RELATIONSHIP. Logos and Branding are part of that murky world called human relationships. These aren't one-size-fits all, staid, cut and dried rules because both the businesses change, as well as their beloved customers. As Skip hits upon - the fulcrum upon which this rotates is how much of a RELATIONSHIP the business has/wants to have/had with their beloved and often illogical customers - AND how much of a relationship same is willing to/wants. Commodities don't have much - if any - relationship with the market. They are interchangeable products/services sold at the lowest price based on location and date. You can change your brand at will and few if any outside the company will notice because there is NO loyalty from customers, a result of NO RELATIONSHIP with the customers. (Many of the corporate owners of resorts take note - in chasing your vaunted Economy Of Scale should NOT make the Resorts the SAME without damaging your brand) Brands are different - because of the RELATIONSHIP they have with the market. They are sold for more than the lowest price and demand loyalty because individuals are engaged. The brand gets that way by listening and providing special, tailored if not unique solutions and good feelings not available elsewhere. Standing atop that branding pyramid it is easy to fall down by failing to attend to the RELATIONSHIP with the customer - and the fastest best way to do that is to start changing that personal face of your business at will. This is the equivalent of changing your face (see Michael Jackson's bio for details) for your own reasons. At best it is confusing; at worse - a horror show that repels those who thought they knew you. It is about the customer, consumer and client. Each want/need a satisfying relationship that delivers good feelings and solutions they don't get from any other business. It is to this group your logo belongs - not the business executives dejour. This rare, valuable and personal RELATIONSHIP is being disrespected when the logo changes because the company has a new set of executives and has lost its way. Its not about the artwork, or what your motivation is to "freshen" your logo; it is all about the RELATIONSHIP. And nothing says "lost your way" better than changing your logo without looking at it, and looking at your entire business, through the eyes of your market (Customer[$]; Consumer[Use]; Client[Info] - what they want - what THEY like. Put your ego and needs before them and at best, you will reduce yourself to a commodity - at worse - bankrupt and out of business.
Two steps back for Gap. The new logo seems genericized to the point of looking like communistic-era design, and not in a good way. It's almost as if they no longer know their target audience, so they're targeting everyone and dumbing their brand down to the lowest common denominator. Big mistake.
Skip used a term in his comment that I think needs more attention than it often receives and that is "Brand Identity". David, I completely agree with your thoughts on the value of building strong and trusting relationships as a core value driver and builder of brand equity and I do think that Logo's are the flag/symbol of a business, a brand, and in many cases the identity of a business's customers. The market is full of examples of this with logo merchandise, jewelry even homes (Martha Stewart Homes by KB Homes). People all over the world love to associate their personal identities with a brand that they fell reflects who they are or in most cases who they want to be. So with so much at stake, when should a business change its logo? When significant factual evidence tells a company that the current logo is actually a negative factor in a businesses ability to succeed. I have seen a few brand studies that showed clearly that customers like the business more than the logo so in this case it might be time for a change but this is very rare and even if it is true a great deal off effort needs to go into finding a solution that actually corrects the problem by creating a new identity (including the logo) that the customer do like (really like), associate easily with and take pride in. This is a tall order. The companies that specialize in this field and are successful truly understand the importance of every little detail. Unfortunately not many agencies are really good at brand identity even thought they would like to think they are. It is a little like the difference between a surgeon and a brain surgeon. With similar implications. Get it wrong and the damage is permeant if not fatal yet every new agency that I have ever worked with at some point pitched us on the need to change our full brand identity. It is the nature of the beast in that creative folks don't like the fact that the logo in many ways effects and limits their creativity. They are building new work on an old foundation and that can be frustrating but it is not a good reason to give up the real equity a business builds in its brand identity. The question that the GAP logo change brings to mind for we was what motivated them to even consider making a change? The answer I'm afraid is something I like to refer to as "Desperation Marketing" which stems from an organization making decisions based on fear not logic. We see this often and the conversation goes like this... "We have a big problem and we need to make big changes if we are going to survive". This is like the old musical "We have trouble in River City and the starts with T and rimes with P and that stands for pool"(pool hall)! This opens the door to a host of poorly considered decisions to transform the business before the core issues causing the problems are fully identified. As Skip points out, in the case of the GAP, they may have issues that have nothing to do with the logo and if this is the case they need to focus on the right issue. The focus on the logo is just a diversion from the true critical issues. It may feel like progress internally but it never really pays off and often turns off the core customer base as David points out. It also often results in the termination of the CMO, one of the reasons the life expectancy of a CMO is normally less than 2 years. In the end, I would like to thank GAP for reminding us just how important three little letters can be. It is reminds me of how something as simple as a flag can be to so many people.
Well ain't this just one big kumbaya love-fest! ;-> And a great discussion. In that in addition to the PR thing I work with a talented graphic and web design firm, so I've been involved in a fair number of logo discussions. With a well-integrated campaign, logo is one of the things that informs the overall design, because the logo should (at least, if it's well-designed) contain visual cues to who and what you are. Nearly everything visual flows from there - colors, shapes, fonts, photography, you name it. If you have unlimited resources, you can simply design to what you want, throw tons of money at promoting it, and hope it sticks. Most brands, however, evolve much more organically than that, and logos - for better or worse - come along for the ride. If the company is successful, an otherwise uninteresting design can become pretty hot property. Anyone taken a good look at Facebook's logo recently? Don't bother. It's still pretty boring if you ask me. It's a mistake to design to whatever's hot right now, for obvious reasons - the design concept might be stale a few years hence. We see that a lot. But sometimes even successful logos can become sufficiently dated to hold you back. There's a big difference between appearing retro-cool and venerable and appearing stodgy and beyond your "best by" date. When that latter is in play, then it's time to carefully re-design (and as noted, such redesigns are often evolutionary, rather than revolutionary).
John, You point to a key issue that is worth highlighting a bit more. I have been involved in scores of logo/branding changes. The vast majority of times I have been involved is when the process has gone wrong. And the problem is always measured in loss of market share, customer base, revenues and - most importantly - profitability. It is never a question of aesthetics, or proportion, or some other issue other than bottom line performance that calls attention to some very poor decisions that have hurt profitability. It comes down to primary motivations, and why you were making those changes to begin with. I have never, never found evidence that changing a logo or brand is driven by customers, consumers or clients. Never. It is always a new CEO, or a new business owner, or a new CMO, or some new product or expansion or something having to do with the business. And the ego of said executive team fails the beloved customers, consumers and clients by changing the face of the business for their own reasons. They might think there is an empirically verifiable reason for doing so - but it Never holds up in the light of day. At least not in my experience. I call this checking your Isite. The "I" is the pronoun representing the ego that is making the decision. The one that counts is the egos of those you serve - C3 - the people who pay for it, use it, or need information about it. If they need it, you are obligated to make those changes. If it isn't for them, then it isn't about serving the market - usually it is about calling attention to the new CEO, owners, CMO or someone or something internal to the business. The business is a separate Isite - a separate ego. Look at it through the eyes of those you serve. If it doesn't improve either the quality of your solutions - or the good feelings you create in C3 - be very careful as you are headed in the direction many businesses head just before they enter a period of stress, loss and unprofitability. Your logo is your face. It is the visual representation of your company in a profound way much more important and impactful than just a little ink smudged on paper. The strange case of Michael Jackson hacking away at his face is directly applicable here as a warning. Rarely. But rarely does changing your logo end up differently than cutting your nose off to spite your face. You may think it is plastic surgery that will make your face so much more beautiful that people won't be able to keep their eyes off your new look. But the reality? Not so good. If Michael Jackson doesn't do it, think Joan Rivers, or Kenny Rogers. Leave your logo alone. Concentrate instead on making your factual solutions more closely tailor to the needs of the market. Create more good feelings at every contact with your company. And communicate those solutions and good feelings in the words and from the perspective of your beloved customers. And then enjoy just how much market share you take from those other businesses who are worried about their logos instead of their customers.
Branding issues are what drew me to marketing when I was a kid, after my dad shared some crazy Sears experiences. Hard for me to believe that businesses still don't understand what their brand means to customers, and consistantly keep goofing with the symbols until every stakeholder is confused and upset. How tuff can it be? Apparently very.
Since I started this little tirade of comments, thought it might be time for me to chime in. Sorry for the delay in posting. I’ve been on deadline for three very large campaigns so my writing takes a back seat. Many valid points and comments here about the power of a logo vs. the power of branding - the relationship between a logo and the brand - the relationship between the customer and brand - and the relationships between the powers in charge of that brand. One of these days you might see these relationships you all wrote about here show up in a nicely designed chart for visual reference.
As a designer I admit, I love it when my account people come back from a new client meeting and tell me we get to redesign the logo. It’s music to my ears. But recently we landed a client who didn’t have the budget to redesign their fairly uninspiring logo, which by the way, has other problems other than inspiration. It uses a difficult to produce wordmark due to the contrast between the ultra thin serifs and thick stems. The logo/icon is clunky, it sports a fairly trite metaphor and an overused shape. It would be so easy to redesign something new. But I couldn’t. Fast Forward two months. The design for the new campaign just got approved and the pieces are now in development. I have to say, in the end coming up with a good solution, a new way to look at and use an existing ‘bad’ logo has been pretty gratifying, almost as good as designing a new one. It’s a different way of solving and looking at a design and communication problem. It is also a sustainable way of looking at design. The client doesn’t have to print new stationery or remake signage. There is no need to spend time getting the media new logo files. I could go on, but I won’t. We all know what an identity change can do to an organization. The new marketing campaign, new look and feel, and new language for the brand is very exciting. We won’t know the ROI until the end of next summer, but we’ll keep you posted. I’ll try and put up a before and after once the campaign breaks.