Mullen //

Never confuse [ad geeks] with the consumer

Posted by Allan Apjohn on 10/21/10
tags: , , ,

Classic Gap logo

“Never confuse yourself with the consumer.” It’s a simple enough statement for those submersed in the ad world. However, do marketing professionals abide by this six word commandment?  As the recent Gap logo hoopla has shown, retail industry professionals may be too easily swayed by the immediate criticism of ad critics, bloggers, and tweets.

In a mere week, a venerable clothing brand changed (with the help of agency Laird & Partners) its iconic logo to a simple bold Helvetica font with a gradient blue box above the “P”. . . and back again to the original logo, citing criticism from the online community as the deciding factor: “Since we rolled out an updated version of our logo last week on our website, we’ve seen an outpouring of comments from customers and the online community in support of the iconic blue box logo,” said Marka Hansen, president of Gap brand, North America.

Almost-new Gap logo

Granted the redesign lacked appropriate brand rationale and made the most freshman designer blush, but Gap did not allow for proper consumer feedback and buckled under the harsh criticism of ad geeks who theorized that this was a publicity stunt and designers who refused to contribute to the crowd-sourcing backup plan for free.

What about the common man, the general public, those who actually wear Gap clothes? An Ipsos Observer study, commissioned by Ad Age, found 80% of consumers had no clue Gap had even changed their logo.  For a brand whose apparel does not exclusively contain the brand logo, and in essence that brand’s identity and value, why didn’t the company’s big wigs give it more time?  Gap is no Louis Vuitton, no Polo, no Nike.  Even when considering the other brands it owns, Banana Republic, Old Navy and Piperlime, there is no iconic logo of this corporation or any of its brands.  Each of its brands hold its value or worth in its name, not its logo.  When we see pop culture chatter changing at such a rapid pace, from Miley’s scandalous new video to the handful (pun intended) of Brett Favre private text messages, why didn’t someone say, “Let’s give this a week or two and see what captures the consumer’s interest next?”  What celebrity scandal, what political gaffe, and in this case, what case of Chilean miners being freed will wash our story out of the news cycle?

Did the brand genuinely fear the abandonment of consumers?  Or, was the peppering of tweets, articles, and blogs from the industry too much to handle?  Either way, Gap has proven to have acted in haste insinuating a lackluster confidence in consumer loyalty and the inability to monitor feedback from industry and consumer.  Do you agree?

  • http://twitter.com/nicolaspy Nico Navarro

    Yeah i agree. I think they have been trying to tell us about the change though. They have been using helvitica in every store to promote their clothing. So they definitely try to tell us about new changes coming in.

    I think it would be different if they choose not to do the “crowd-sourcing project” because after that post on facebook was when everybody went crazy about the new logo.

    Is there are any “outline” that every company should follow when changing a logo? What would you guys advice?

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, they really dropped the ball. Gap’s CEO confused “passion about the brand” with “some people don’t like our logo.”

    I think they threw creatives under the bus here, too. Oh well.

  • http://www.blog201.wordpress.com Room201

    Absolutely Allan. Think this whole saga just shows that big brands (and their agencies) don’t know how to respond to/manage social media reaction. It would be a bizarre world if every brand had to twist and turn based on every little bit of negative reaction to anything that they do, or feel that they have to go out to public consultation on every decision they make! I would guess that Gap won’t be the last brand that will be bounced around by social networks.

  • Avi

    Interesting take, but as you say: “…the redesign lacked appropriate brand rationale.” It seems the reversal was not so much premature scurrying as the rebrand arrived without an ounce of definition before, during or after. Essentially, Gap presented a shot in the dark, so instead of waiting for it to possibly be embraced by consumers, smartly withdrew it on the realization that no proper rationale could be presented by anyone–company, creative, critic… and it “…made the most freshman designer blush.”

  • Benjamin Rogers

    I agree that they should have waited at least a month to see how it impacted the most important thing of all… sales. They’ve slowly been rolling out the Helvetica treatment over the past year in advertising and I bet that you’re right… if they stuck to their guns, their sales numbers most likely wouldn’t have been impacted. Their current consumers had already been transitioned.

    Here’s my problem with all of this though… why was this direction in identity chosen in the first place? To me it comes off as some desperate attempt to look a little more like American Apparel… but is that who they really want to emulate? I get that AA is hip and pulls in the demo that GAP made its fortune with back in the 90′s… but AA is just a fad. What’s next? Will they start crowd sourcing tee-shirt designs like Threadless? It’s too little, too late.

    Instead of a logo, what GAP really needs to focus on is the quality of the clothes again. Most people’s impression – right or wrong – is that it’s been rebadged Old Navy for close to a decade now. Quality is what will ultimately win consumers back for the long haul.

  • Gpreziosa

    Hey Allan, great entry and I completely agree!!

Switch to mobile version