It is hard to believe that the speculation surrounding the launch of a fake new identity by GAP can be true. Unless they are in so much trouble that anything is worth the risk, the stakes are too high. On one hand, it would be a way to create a dialogue by betting on a "viral-effect" generated by the bad design with almost an assurance of a further change. This risky hypothesis is supported by the fact that they didn't change the façade of, let's say, one big store in Manhattan from day to night.
Many brands launch a new logo using flagship stores and try to capitalize on media to get attention. My other suspicion rises from the quick change of mind when they faced tough comments on all sorts of digital channels. The reaction was quick, and appeared to be decisive, even though it became blurry later on. The last giveaway in my view is that that logo is, simply put, very badly designed. It seems not to have followed any aesthetic criteria whatsoever; in fact, when I consulted a couple of people in the industry, they agreed that the logo looks like a joke. GAP, by the way, has several different logo styles depending on the collection or application of the name, but all are generally well-designed.
A project of this amplitude would easily cost more than a million dollars, and would take months to be developed; however, the new GAP logo is far below any quality standard a good designer can think of. But in the end, if it was all done in good faith, it will make companies think harder and invest in a better process when designing something new, considering the immediacy of the feedback they might (and probably will) receive in this day and age.
Companies the size of GAP are always in big trouble when facing the problem of an aging identity, with a clear absence of a new model. Simply becoming "not cool" anymore is a major challenge for the marketers (and later, designers) inside the company. They reach a point when a new slogan or nice photography in their advertising campaigns and brochures simply do not lead to results anymore, and the media-spending starts to become unjustifiable compared to sales. Their fear is to risk what they still have for an unknown territory. It is a tricky business.
In my next book from our logo design series, Myles McGuinness, founder of design studio 9Myles based in San Diego, writes the following: "In A River Runs Through It, a young boy takes a full-page essay to his gruff father and shows it to him. The father hands it back to the boy and says, 'Now say everything you just said, but say it on just half the page.' When the boy arrives with his story now told on half the page, the father tells him, 'Do it again, and this time, do it on a quarter of the page.' The father knows there is gold in brevity and wit. For those who design logos, this is our task. To take the most powerful component of the brand, shape it, and start to cull it down - and cull it down again - to its barest and most spectacular minimum. And even when the story you're trying to tell is broad, it must fit on the size of a postage stamp with all the bravado and ta-da of a pop-up book. And yet the best logos do so much more than represent the company or mission well. They reach into the heart and appeal to an audience's sense of cool. Logos actually give people something to belong to. They can be so meaningful that it compels people to brandish them as a way of expressing to the world who they are. On hats. Shirts. Bumpers. Car windows. Think of all the men with a
Harley-Davidson tattoo. To them it isn't just a logo. It isn't that they own a Harley. It's that, in a way, Harley owns them. They belong to it. Forever. How's that for brand loyalty."
Unfortunately, the opinions of designers are very often the ones that are not-so important. See cases like the 2012 Summer Olympic Games in London, when the logo created by Wolff Olins had been heavily criticized by the design community from day one (and I actually always liked it). All that didn't change much in the course of implementation. The logo is now everywhere and most people have gotten used to it.
What matters in this case is to observe how quickly few people (compared to the overall consumer-base of GAP) can create a big fuss. The relevance here is that they are consumers of the brand, and also want to have a say about something they care about. Companies in all areas need more than ever to listen carefully when they put something out, and need also to be prepared to put in place an eventual back-up plan. The viral can always turn into a bad experience to degenerate brand loyalty further. But these days, a good plan behind a bad design can also turn it into a good marketing experience. Everything is possible.
Julius Wiedemann is both the Executive Editor of Design, and the Director of Digital Publications for TASCHEN publishing. In the last seven years he has edited over 25 books, in areas such as advertising, Internet, computer graphics, art, product design, computer games, and others, collaborating with people from over 50 countries. His many TASCHEN digital and media titles include Illustration Now!, Advertising Now, Logo Design, and Brand Identity Now!. To date his books have sold over 1 million copies worldwide. For more information visit www.taschen.com and www.juliuswiedemann.com
http://www.trendslate.com/2010/10/24/gap-have-you-considered-acquiring-american-apparel/
carry a logo, which is already happening. Logos will become the symbol for shallow consumerism
and gluttonous greed. Logos, very uncool.
The message is obvious, that the product, like the logo, is still desirable, on second thought... and we know that because our customers said so. By popular demand, we're not changing a thing. Comeback to the Gap, pPLleeeas!
Because the new logo was SO bad, so obviously cheap with no professional design consideration given at all, people have suspected the ruse, causing a meta discussion the gap probably didn't meant to attract in excess of the fake controversy.
ftr...I remove any and all corporate identifiers from all my purchases. To me, 99% of the time...the logo is an aesthetic turn-off. Further displeasure occurs at the thought of the cost of the logo's design and manufacture, adhesion or branding onto the product, is passed onto the consumer.
everything is NOT possible!