Old Gap vs. New Gap

Gap introduced their “new” logo on Tuesday October 5th. Without any fanfare or commotion, the company introduced their newest logo. As seen above, the design is the word “Gap” in Helvetica, with a blue faded square behind the “p”. When I first saw it I thought it was a joke. When I think of GAP I think of a company known for their edginess, a clothing store for the “stylish” and “well dressed”. Not only is the company itself known for its aesthetical appeal, but its sister companies (Old Navy and Banana Republic) are also known for their ability to keep and set the style trends. After less than a week, Gap Incorporated announced in a press release that they will “go back to our iconic blue box logo…” The company decided to announce that they were reverting back to their old logo the same way they announced the new one: Facebook. After hundreds of their “fans” on Facebook complained about the new logo they decided to do the redo.

In their press release, spokeswoman Louise Callagy said that “At Gap brand, our customers have always come first.” In my opinion, if that was the case, they should have consulted their customers/fans. The company not only has a Facebook page but it also has a Twitter account that they regularly make announcements on. Now I don’t know how much money they spent on the logo redesign, but I think that they should have spent a little of that money in research. They needed to test the waters, to see how the public reacts to an idea before changing what can correctly be described as their “iconic blue box logo.” The fact that they didn’t know how severely the public would react shows that it was not thought through enough. The amount of money they spent changing their promotions, signs and storefronts obviously is not worth the cost. In my research, I found that they even changed their storefront at their flagship store in London, England.

It’s obvious that they now see the error of their way. Later on in the press release, Ms. Callagy says that “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.” They have a fantastic opportunity to communicate with their customers in the form of social networking. In my opinion, to not take advantage of this opportunity is just bad business.

As far as the design itself is concerned, I can honestly say that I hate it. I am all for using Helvetica or any similar “simple” font for marketing. I just feel that its use is inappropriate for its specific application. The fact that the logo goes from a modern style serif font that is uppercase to letter case Helvetica is a drastic change. The original logo looks sophisticated and classic, while still portraying a modern mood. The new logo is bland. It seems too corporate for a company that strives to be a part of the trendy and artistic. The new logo also portrays a feeling of being ordinary. When people buy new clothes they want to feel good about themselves. They want other people to notice them and have a positive reaction. The new logo, to me, is basically portraying “I am ordinary and plain. Don’t buy my clothes because you will look ordinary and plain.”

In conclusion, it was a fiasco. A disaster. Companies that are so recognizable just by their logo and branding should stick to what works. Change happens, but it can be done at a slower pace. Basically, what’s not broke, don’t fix it.


Image from: http://www.graphicology.com/blog/2010/10/10/315-a-gap-in-confidence.html