Gaps Million Dollar Flip Flop
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
When GAP decided to launch their new logo on its north american
website I doubt they were prepared for the coverage it would
receive. After just one week it had received so much criticism on
Facebook and Twitter they reverted back to the classic blue square
and white letter combination they've had for the last twenty years.
The internet has been awash with discussion on the topic and many
have been trying to decipher what lessons can be learnt from GAP's
misjudgements.
The new logo shamelessly adopts the Helvitica font used by
competitor American Apparel and tacks on a small blue square in a
half hearted attempt to appear to be associated with a separate
brand and a separate image. Consumers now have a better knowledge
of design techniques and have greater access to decent software, so
if you are going to change a logo you have to show a little more
craft and creativity. Most of the bedroom critics could have
knocked up the new logo on their home computers in no time at all,
so they expect more from professional marketing departments on
sizeable pay rolls.
In recent years GAP have been feeling the effect of their struggle
to find a new direction, brandchannel.com describing "how Gap's
over-expansion, soft consumer spending and changing styles
conspired to drag the clothing retailer down from its once-lofty
position". Perhaps they were hoping to rectify this by introducing
a new logo. A logo however, should be viewed by consumers as the
product of a new direction not its instigator, and if the brand's
direction is too diffuse or hard for consumers to get behind, a
change in logo will seem unexpected and unnecessary.
By immediately backing out, GAP have demonstrated a remarkable
lack of belief in the change. Comparisons have been made to
Tropicana who decided to backtrack on a change in packaging last
year. That decision however came after a months data showed they
were losing sales with their new modern look. GAP's concession on
the other hand was a response to the social networking mob that
came before any concrete results and shows a larger lack of
faith both in the logo and sense of direction overall.
I'm not saying that the social networks should be taken lightly
by any means, it is however a different medium and be should
treated as such. Twenty years ago you would have had to write a
letter to GAP voicing your displeasure at the new logo, a task many
of the facebookers and tweeters wouldn't have bothered with. Now
when giving opinion online is instantaneous and joining Facebook
campaigns is practically an end in itself, far more people will
click on to say something negative before the change has had time
to bed in or even when they don't feel particularly strongly on the
matter. Moreover, people like to take a dig at the establishment
and, being the simplest image connected to a brand, logos provide
the best vehicle for attacking them; it may be difficult to
articulate your views on a brand's corporate responsibility but
it's easy to say why their logo looks crap.
Change on the whole is not welcomed by the general public.
Indeed, Facebook and Twitter both received heavy criticism by their
users when they implemented new systems, yet clearly both sets have
stuck with them enough to attack changes in other companies. A bit
of bravery and commitment is required to ride out the initial
negativity and allow customers time to adjust.
A slightly more considered approach wouldn't go amiss either.
Enforcing the long standing relationship customers have with their
brands has been particularly important in these times of austerity,
and many brands are currently using campaigns that play on their
history. Whereas here nostalgia is used to create a sense of
reliability, a change in logo distances a brand from its past and
customers connection with it. Heinz for example have just rebranded
its tomato ketchup as 'Your Secret Ingredient', which uses the
relationship customers have developed with the product during their
lives. The change is supported by press and radio advertising as
well as a dedicated website with videos featuring celebrity chef
Paul Rankin, who shows how to use ketchup in home cooking. The
change in title comes as part of a complete package, clearly
defined and easy for users to get involved with. In contrast GAP's
logo change seems token and pointless.
A few people have suggested that this whole affair has been one big
PR stunt, the negativity towards the new logo highlighting
passionate bonds with GAP's heritage. This I think is probably
giving them too much credit, but we should certainly be thankful
for providing all of us with some food for thought on the various
issues that have been thrown up.
Robert McCorquodale
ShareThis