Gap shows it can learn from mistakes with logo debacle

Gap's recent attempt to change its logo, likely to help lagging sales, was met with serious 2.0 resistance. When the company released the logo, consumers said, through Twitter, Facebook, etc, that they preferred the original blue box design, prompting the company to respond.

Gap's recent attempt to change its logo, likely to help lagging sales, was met with serious 2.0 resistance. When the company released the logo, consumers said, through Twitter, Facebook, etc, that they preferred the original blue box design, prompting the company to respond. It quickly leveraged the buzz, listening to critics - be they what some marketers call a vocal minority - scrapping the new logo, and crowd-sourcing for updated logo suggestions.

In the end, it held onto its original icon and, according to an online statement, reflected on an original missed “opportunity to engage with the online community” while planning for a change.  

Though the company may have missed that original opportunity, it likely generated additional buzz through its negative reception by showing a willingness to listen, change, and cede a degree of control to the consumer. It was a quick response and, let's face it, everyone loves a comeback.  

The buzz around this incident sums up the level of power that the consumer has gained in the marketing profession. This is less about the potential loss of brand recognition through changed design, and more about aesthetically and emotionally appealing to a vocal, passionate, and now digital consumer-base.  

Marketers may call the approach a cop-out, since the company probably invested significant resources in producing a refreshed logo only to scrap it, but the response was quick and for the most part well-received, and it generated online debate and ongoing buzz. Even though the buzz may give corporate a migraine, i.e. someone created a @gaplogo Twitter handle that has taken on the mysterious persona of a womanizer dodging Gap corporate inquiries about its true identity. 

The response was there, but next time, rather than crowd-source the design of an ill-received logo, or try for a brand fresh at all, maybe they should be polling consumers on what it would take for them to buy more jeans and sweaters.

Gap shows it can learn from mistakes with logo debacle

Gap's recent attempt to change its logo, likely to help lagging sales, was met with serious 2.0 resistance. When the company released the logo, consumers said, through Twitter, Facebook, etc, that they preferred the original Blue Box design, prompting the company to respond. It quickly leveraged the buzz, listening to critics - be they what some marketers call a vocal minority - scrapping the new logo, and crowd-sourcing for updated logo suggestions.

In the end, it held onto its original icon and, according to an online statement, reflected on an original missed “opportunity to engage with the online community” while planning for a change.  

Though the company may have missed that original opportunity, it likely generated additional buzz through its negative reception by showing a willingness to listen, change, and cede a degree of control to the consumer. It was a quick response and, let's face it, everyone loves a comeback.  

The buzz around this incident sums up the level of power that the consumer has gained in the marketing profession. This is less about the potential loss of brand recognition through changed design, and more about aesthetically and emotionally appealing to a vocal, passionate, and now digital consumer-base.  

Marketers may call the approach a cop-out, since the company probably invested significant resources in producing a refreshed logo only to scrap it, but the response was quick and for the most part well-received, and it generated online debate and ongoing buzz. Even though the buzz may give corporate a migraine, i.e. someone created a @gaplogo Twitter handle that has taken on the mysterious persona of a womanizer dodging Gap corporate inquiries about its true identity. 

The response was there, but next time, rather than crowd-source the design of an ill-received logo, or try for a brand fresh at all, maybe they should be polling consumers on what it would take for them to buy more jeans and sweaters.

Have you registered with us yet?

Register now to enjoy more articles and free email bulletins

Register
Already registered?
Sign in

Would you like to post a comment?

Please Sign in or register.