The picture above is not the new Gap logo. It’s a version that I created myself, in PowerPoint, in about 15 minutes. I just used the logo-design steps I outlined in one of my old, sarcastic posts titled “How to build your brand for free.” While it’s tough to objectively judge a logo, I do wonder whether the ability to quickly replicate it in a Microsoft Office program should be cause for concern.
It seems the new logo, announced earlier this week, has mostly experienced a negative reception from the general public. Time’s NewsFeed may be one exception (if they’re not kidding):
But “generic” and “looks alike” are not usually words you want to hear in reaction to a logo. And since the same words could be used to describe the vanishing uniqueness of Gap’s clothing, the brand may be squandering one of its few remaining strengths: a link to its own past. I’m not saying the logo has to stay the same, or that it should look like something from 1969, but if this dramatic change conveys “a streamlined, technologically dominant future,” can we expect a matching change in Gap’s overarching strategy (including products, of course)? If not, I have trouble seeing this as anything more than desperate attention seeking.
For contrast, check out something Levi’s has been up to lately. It’s not a logo redesign, but I love how this campaign at once romanticizes the company’s history and makes relevant connections to the present.
[Thanks to Shireen for pointing out the new Gap logo.]
TrackBack URL :