I used to buy most of my clothing at the Gap. That’s not to say that I ever dressed like a Gap mannequin (except for that one time when my mom actually bought me a complete mannequin ensemble…). I picked and chose and mostly plundered the clearance rack. $6.97 for a pair of boot-cut jeans? Done. If I was near a Gap store, I’d spend 15 minutes looking for a bargain. Could you call me a Gap loyalist? Probably not. But I was a regular customer.
And now… Other than the random stop at Gap Kids or that one time my wife got a coupon for a FREE pair of jeans, I haven’t been to the Gap in years. What changed? I did. Or the Gap did. Or I changed and it didn’t. Or it changed and I didn’t. It’s hard to tell exactly what goes wrong when a customer disconnects from a brand. But I’m disconnected. And so are lots of former Gap customers. Same-store revenue at Gap stores (including Old Navy and Banana Republic) has declined in the past few years (-8% in 2009 alone). These days, it’s easy to blame “The Economy,” but it would be a mistake. The Gap has a bigger problem than “The Economy.” The Gap has a brand problem.
That’s what makes the recent uproar about the redesign of the Gap logo so interesting. Designers and agencies spend considerable time and energy convincing clients that their “logo is not a brand.” We do it at StruckAxiom all the time. We work to help clients understand that a brand is more than a color palette or a typeface or a gradient. A brand is an emotion. It’s a promise. It’s what you believe. It’s why you do what you do.
In the scheme of things, a logo matters very little. People get used to logos. They attach their own experiences to them. If I have a positive experience with a brand, it changes the way I feel about their logo. Customers don’t care about the logo. They care about the brand. They care about the quality and fit of the clothing. They care about style. They (hopefully) care about sustainable business practices. Whether they can express it or not, customers care about the Gap’s why.
And there’s the problem: I don’t know what the Gap believes or why the Gap makes clothing. I don’t know if they make clothes for me (a creative in Portland, OR) or if they make clothes for my Uncle Lyle, who is a judge in (very rural) Southeastern Utah. So let’s stop pretending that a logo (ugly, beautiful, crowd-sourced or whatever) is going fix a problem of that scope.
While the Twitter battle rages and the design-your-own-logo madness (on sites like ISO50) continues, let’s not confuse ourselves. The Gap doesn’t have a logo problem. They have a brand problem.
18 Comments
1
I can’t help but agree.
They’ve had a brand problem since 2000. In 1999, supposedly their sales increase was because of the brand’s ubiquity. However, it seems now that they’ve lost that; quite possibly the reason for the such simplified new logo. Which, no matter how hard any brand tries, will not fix the internal brand problems.
The ISO50 contest was about providing a solution to all of this complaining. Time and time again we’ve seen logos appear that we disagree with, but no one seems to have any suggestions on how to fix them—this was an aim to fix that. Unfortunately Gap turned the tables and threw out this “crowd-sourcing” jazz.
I’ve also never been connected to the GAP other than by visually by this and quite frankly that connection isn’t very beneficial to the sale of their product.
2
I definitely agree… but a logo should embody the brand. What I have a problem with, is that they’ve gone from a mark that has strong visual cues, to a mark that is ambiguous and vague – not to mention unprofessional.
Yes, there is a much bigger problem than just a logo redesign. But the logo is definitely a manifestation of that problem.
3
@Shelby – No real beef with the ISO50 contest here. If people want to design something for fun, good on them. I just think it’s funny that everyone’s in an uproar about a logo, when the real problem is so much bigger (and more interesting). And your link is a good reminder that the Gap is likely a victim of its own success(es). They have a solid design track record and it feels like people are disappointed that a typically sharp visual brand opted for something so poor.
@Scott – I’m with you on the new logo. It’s not good. And you’re right, it’s just a symptom of the bigger problem. Just seems like all the focus is on the symptom in this case…
4
I’m going to go against my best judgement and submit what seems to be a blatant contradiction.
While a brand is much larger than any one of it’s parts (i.e. a logo), a logo has potential to summarize the brand in the most potent and easily digested form.
Take Paul Rand’s original UPS logo, a shield and a “brown” package. This logo was short-hand for “We see your packages to their destinations safely” and that is a provocative brand sentiment.
This isn’t to say that a sharp/smart logo is enough to make up for a larger mission and set of values but to overlook the logo like GAP has is a tragic case of missed opportunity.
Reading over this, my argument sounds really pretentious and it probably is. Damn art school.
5
“a typically sharp visual brand opted for something so poor.”
I’m not seeing a world of difference between the new Gap logo and the StruckAxiom logo at the top of this very page. What exactly makes theirs poor?
6
@DK – Not pretentious at all. Logos matter… but only in the sense that they represent something larger (just like your UPS example). I just believe that Gap is failing in that “something larger” department more than they’re failing in the logo department.
@fr – Hunh. You’re right. Both Helvetica. Both simple. The big separation for me is that the Gap has 40 years (and billions of dollars) of equity behind their logo—and they’re trying to communicate something different than we are to a much different audience.
7
They haven’t used that current logo for 40 years. I clearly remember the ’60s “the Gap” avant garde version being ubiquitous in the ’80s. The blue box version must have been late ’80s/early ’90s at the earliest. And I don’t think there was much equity behind their logo. It’s not exactly an iconic fashion label like a Chanel or Hilfiger or something.
I don’t know anything about your company (I followed a link here from ISO50) but I don’t see a world of difference between the goals and audiences of the two companies either. Presumably both logos are trying to articulate a clean, timeless design that sort of gets out of the way and lets the product be the focus (in your case, your work for clients, in Gap’s case, their clothing).
8
“Customers don’t care about the logo. They care about the brand.”
This is why I say that graphic designers have absolutely no idea what they’re doing or what they’re talking about. Statements like this prove me right. Everything you said about brand has merit, but the above statement proves ignorance.
If you’re watching what’s happening right now with the Gap logo and you can sit there and say “Customers don’t care about the logo,” then you’re an idiot. Plain and simple. You can’t have this much of an uproar over something and then say that people don’t care.
Now, over time, people may grow apathetic or complacent, but if that’s the end result you’re going for, you should be fired. You’re telling me that designers (should) tell their customers (i.e. the firms) not to care about the logo because no one cares and over time they get used to it? Then why DON’T we crowd source all the time and why DO we have graphic designers in the first place? No one cares, right? Why should anyone invest their hard earned money for a graphic designer’s talent if no one gives a f**k in the end?
If people didn’t care, you could have every logo in the freakin’ world in Comic Sans and no one would say boo. If people didn’t care, this change would have happened and no one would have spoken about it. Nor would people have complained (legitimately) about Tropicana’s redesign. If people didn’t care, nobody would be making jokes about the horrible McDonald’s “i’m lovin’ it” change. To this day if I mention McDonalds, SOMEONE pokes fun at that slogan. Why on Earth is that if people don’t care?
Because these ARE things that interest us – the common, lowly, non-graphic designed trained, ignorant masses – because they ARE part of AND affect our lives. These ARE things we talk about. These ARE things that interest us. These ARE things we look at. Because that’s THE BLOODY POINT of a logo: Something to talk about, to help us remember, to keep in mind, to associate with. You know what logo will stick with me until the day I die? A checkmark-esque swoosh. We all know what it means. We have a connection to it. Same thing with a golden, rounded M. A black circle with 2 mouse ears. You CAN’T tell me that companies spend all this time and money into creating a logo to build an easy, identifiable reference to their brand/product and at the same time that people either don’t have/shouldn’t have a connection to the brand/product through the logo nor do/should they care about it. That makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.
Graphic designers are so obsessed with their craft that they forget their audience consistency. “Less is more! Less is more!” they say over and over and they keep minimizing and minimizing until they’re left with nothing. And nothing is what I see in graphic design all around me these days. There’s nothing for us to connect with, nothing for us to identify with. There’s simply nothing there. Slap the company name in Helvetica on a giant white background and you’re considered a design genius (Not you. I’m talking about American Apparel. Hmm, irony). Take a two word company name, delete the space between the two words and BOOM! Revofuckinglutionary (Not you. I’m talking about almost any two word web based company. Hmm, irony). This product had colours and patterns and artistic character on it… f**k THAT! Emotionless solid colour background, generic sans serif font, make it look like nothing at all yet strangely like almost everything else made by graphic designers today and watch graphic designers LOSE THEIR MINDS! No one’s done this before (except everyone!) Hurray!
Then when people complain that a logo has been changed into a parody of an internet meme (Helvetica, gradient, DONE!) we – the filthy masses who consume the product – don’t know what we’re talking about. We don’t understand, we can’t see the genius, we’ll get over it in time. We’ll get over it in time. Like we’re secondary. Like we’re unimportant. Like we’re a f*****g afterthought.
Because none of this – NONE OF THIS – is being done so that we – the secondary, unimportant afterthoughts – will chose this brand over the other, will like this package over the other one better and buy one product instead of another. If that’s the case, I ask again, why the f**k should we give two s***s about graphic design? We don’t care, right? Nor do we matter, apparently.
Bullshit. And f**k you for thinking so little of us. We may not be graphic design gods, hand picked by Lord Photoshop Herself to deliver us from the wretched over-usage of Comic Sans and Papyrus, but like any other artistic medium, we have our opinions, we know what we like and we can tell when something is good or if someone is shovelling us crap and saying: “Customers don’t care about the logo. They care about the brand” and that we’ll “[g]et used to [it].”
We don’t all like the same thing. Helvetica is to graphic designers what Comic Sans is to the layman. Graphic designers need to stop slapping it on everything under the sun and thinking they’re awesome. They’re absolutely not. The second I see a graphic designer reach for Helvetica I think: “Here’s a person with absolutely no imagination, no emotion and doesn’t give a s**t.” I look at your post then I look up at your header and I’m instantly proven right.
Either stop thinking people don’t care, or start looking for another job, ’cause you shouldn’t be in this one if you do. Since – and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong here – we’ve now established that your audience doesn’t matter (from your words) and that we don’t (or needn’t) care (again from your words), I ask you this: Why on Earth are you a graphic designer in the first place? Who are you doing this job for and why? You don’t care about your audience and apparently, your audience doesn’t care about you so what the f**k drives you to create anything? As far as I can tell, you just described the most meaningless form of art imaginable. And you work in it day in and day out? Your life must be an empty shell of awful.
And don’t you dare cop out and tell me that logos are just one/small part of graphic design. They’re still a part of the job, they’re still important (as evidenced by the Gap brouhaha) and they’re obviously a HUGE part of the graphic design job description. It’s a part of graphic design that people put time and effort into and I’m sure there’s one or two people out their that like to feel proud about their work at the end of the day when they create a logo that’s really special.
We care about brand. Absolutely. But we also care about logos and visual presentation because we care about graphic design. Not all of us may understand it as in-depth as all of you do, but some of us DO get it. Like people, we care about how a company presents themselves and you should be overfuckingjoyed that we do because our caring keeps you employed. So how about you and all your fellow graphic designing brethren start paying attention to us and start understanding that we actually care about the work you and your ilk produce. Stop looking at us contemptuously like afterthoughts who don’t know any better and start treating us with a little f*****g respect. And tell yourself and all your graphic design buddies to start putting a little effort into their work because – as this Gap fiasco is visibly proving – your minimalist tripe doesn’t cut it anymore. Stop telling us what we think, what you think we think, what you think we’re supposed to/should think and start actually listening to what we’re bloody saying.
By the way, your Reddest Footer of All Time is obnoxious and kept getting in the way of the comment box every time I moved my mouse away. But what do I know? I’m just a lowly, untrained, afterthought who doesn’t matter and doesn’t care, right?
9
Great post Matt, but I’d say they have a logo problem AND a brand problem.
10
@fr – You make an interesting point about the similarities between what we do and what the Gap does. I hadn’t thought of it that way.
@Jeff – Thanks. I probably agree with you more than I let on…
@ThisIsMe – I appreciate your feedback and opinion. The salty language and insults… not so much. But this is the internet and I should’ve expected it. Anyway, I’ll leave my response to three simple points:
1. I’m sorry if I led you to believe that we don’t care about logos or consumers. We care about logos and consumers. We care too much about logos and consumers. We recently designed 90 versions of a single logo for a client because we’re obsessed with finding the perfect solution for that brand and its audience. We also care about hang-tags and hold music and the flower arrangements in the lobby. We care about all of it. Because those things are for the audience. And because that’s what a brand is. It’s everything.
2. I think you’re making my point for me with your reference of the Disney/Mickey Mouse and Nike logos. People don’t respond to those logos because of the way they look. They respond because they remind them of something else. They respond because the Mouse Ears take them back to Space Mountain or because the Swoosh reminds them of Michael Jordan “dropping a double nickel on the Knicks.” They respond to the brand, not the logo.
3. It’s not that consumers “get used to it” (apologies again if I misstated my opinion), it’s that their experience with the brand takes precedence. The initial reactions to the new Pepsi logo(s) may have been unfavorable… but the product was still the same and the overall brand message was enhanced through the redesign (especially with campaigns like the Pepsi Refresh Project). So what happened to all the consumers who “hated” the new Pepsi logo(s)? Their brand experience proved more important than their immediate, out-of-context reaction to a logo.
Thanks again for joining the conversation. Let’s keep it classy from here on out.
11
I absolutely agree. And what a horrible way to use helvetica – what is that gradient box about? I say revert to the old logo and spend some money on pushing the idea of the brand through advertising…(but hey, what do I know?)
The old logo wasn’t anything special, but at least it looked appealing to the eye!
12
@This Is Me Posting – I think the point here is not that the logo is just bad. It is. The point is that if the brand itself were in better shape, a logo redesign wouldn’t have ever been considered in the first place. I’m sure that NIke’s happy with what they’ve got.
Also, it’s not the helvetica that makes it unsuccessful. It’s the upper/lower case, the complete pointlessness of the placement of the square..etc. A good logo could have been created with a blue square, a white field and helvetica.
Helvetica seems cool (for the time being) when used for American Apparel. It seems safe and confident when used by American Airlines. People see it a thousand times a day and never think of it. GAP could have used it in a good way. Instead the logo just highlights the larger struggle the company faces.
It’s that this logo, at this time looks, like lame attempt to recapture a market that has passed them by.
13
I didn’t ever get the impression that Matt was saying “logos don’t matter and you don’t matter.”
Rather, the point he was trying to make (I believe), is that it doesn’t matter if you redesign your logo if you are unwilling to address the deeper, more fundamental problems with your brand.
A logo refresh can be a nice ADDITION to an over-arching rebranding campaign. However, a logo-only change doesn’t really accomplish anything other than… well… a new mark. People still aren’t really any more inclined to favor your brand over your competitors.
@this is me posting, of COURSE you remember the Nike logo, the mickey mouse ears, etc. It’s just like Matt said—there has been far more than a logo to give you those memories. They’ve been reinforced by positive experience after positive experience with their brand. If Nike had a cool “swoosh” but had terrible products and left you wanting as the consumer, you wouldn’t be as inclined to remember that “awesome” swoosh. You’d move on to the next brand. As my point… do you happen to remember what the logo for L.A. Gear shoes looked like? Maybe YOU do, but I’d wager to say that the vast majority of people don’t.
@Jeff Yamada— You have cool kids.
That is all.
14
Great post Matt! I agree with you that there is definitely a bigger problem than just the logo. To the general public a logo is only a minute part of what makes up a brand. To graphic designers the logo is everything. When you work in a certain field you criticize harshly on the aspects that concern you. A composer will critique a movie soundtrack, a carpenter will critique your molding and a developer will critique your code. These are all things that contribute to a bigger problem. A bad soundtrack doesn’t make a bad movie, bad molding doesn’t make a bad house and bad code does not make bad website.
It’s not that people don’t care about the logo, it’s that there is so much more that contributes to why they do or don’t shop at the gap. A rebrand goes way beyond just designing the logo.
15
In response to this “Brand vs. Logo” post, I would say that their logo is a symptom of their brand. If you wanted to revitalize a company in a fundamental way, just changing a logo is a very superficial way to do it.
Digging deep into the process of truly examining what a company stands for, and maybe even changing its principles and processes in response to new information is very different from just changing a logo.
This new logo shows that The Gap is a bit confused about what it is and where it stands, and now it’s asking it’s friends about who it should be.
@thisisme, the logo is not the problem. There are tons of ugly logos that no one cares about, because most of them are for things no one has heard of. The Gap is a big brand that sits on a foundation of what it does and has done, so people notice a dramatic and ugly change like this. I could draw an ugly logo right now, and no one would talk about it, because there would be no brand behind it.
“If a graphic designer draws a logo in a forest and no one sees it, was it really drawn?”
I am not a graphic designer myself, but I think there is a big difference between them having “absolutely no idea what they’re doing or what they’re talking about” and not really understanding what they do, or what they are talking about. It can get a bit jargon-y though, I know that makes me cranky sometimes @thisisme.
16
Well this is probably a discussion for creatives and designers. So maybe I shouldn’t comment, but for me a normal average consumer with no eye for creative details, I think the logo is pure gasoline. It sparks no emotion in me as a consumer and the logo feels like a stiff, financial institution logo. If thats all Gap does to try and turn me and get me back in the doors, then my disposable income dollars will continue to stay away. I need more than a refresh, I need Megan Fox displaying this somewhere on that canvas. I need Tony Romo rocking this. Lastly I need the experience at the store to make me want to come back. I don’t connect with the store when I walk in anymore. I have tried and will give it the token quick entry, but the last 5 or 6 times I have gone in I feel nothing and leave within 2 minutes.
Again I’m just a simple non creative telling you my point of view on why I don’t shop there anymore and why this logo does nothing, in fact makes me feel even less desire to even shop there.
If they want me back, like I’ve mentioned above.
- Do some better advertising to make me believe the Gap is hip and the place to buy clothes again. Throw in some celebrity to endorse how great your brand is.
- Make my store experience something to remember, something that makes me want to come back. Separate yourself from the rat race. I want to connect and believe in the company I purchase from. Then again maybe a 36 year old husband and father is not who you are targeting, so maybe that’s why I am disconnected with your message.
- Since this is all about me, go back to your old logo. I hate the new one. It pushes me away even more.
At the end of the day you know your audience and maybe you have a big plan on who you’re targeting. I should ask my teenage daughters if this logo or if the Gap does anything for them. Because if you are not hitting me as an audience and you are not hitting teenagers, then what are you doing?????
17
It’s just Gap. No the. Sorry.
19
Great post Matt. Excellent article… and I agree. In addition… the “new” logo is terrible and probably one of the worst logos i have ever seen.