Gap logo fiasco

     Gap's recent attempt at implementing a new logo is an interesting study in how not to re-design a logo. The company's recent 4-5% loss in sales allegedly prompted the 20-year-old company to re-vamp its traditional logo (blue box, serif font, all caps). Gap reportedly wished to project a more modern feel with their new design. However, it looks as if the effort failed miserably on several levels.

Image source: www.nj.com

     First, the cost of implementing a new logo (let alone the cost of hiring a design team) is numbered in the millions. Surely it is not wise to drastically alter a company's identifying mark, especially in a time of financial uncertainty. The cost of replacing signs, re-tagging garments, re-designing the logo on the website and re-vamping advertisements would seem to be astronomically higher than the cost of a slight dip in sales.

     Second, when re-designing a logo that carries with it a certain amount of charisma, it is generally best to make slight and subtle changes to the image. However, Gap didn't take this route. The traditional Gap logo (which, I might add, is associated by customers with more successful times for the company) is white, serif font on a simple, blue background. The contrast of white type on a dark background is eye-catching and the serif font is comfortable to read.

     In the new logo, the designer chose a sans serif font (Helvetica), did away with the nice light/dark contrast and changed the whole impression of the design upon the reader. Helvetica works well in many designs and uses, but this was not one of them. A font that projects a cold, industrial feel needs to be offset with something softer than the hard-edged square that sits beside the company name in the new logo. The black font contrasts well with the white background, but the tacky-looking blue square that slightly overlaps the black font looks like something that an inexperienced or careless designer came up with, though this is probably not the case.

     When customers immediately began to criticize the new logo, Gap listened and took steps to gather design ideas from the general public. However, the company ended up going back to using its traditional logo. A few lessons learned from this scenario are obvious. First, a time of economic crisis is not a good time to be pouring money into a risky logo and identity overhaul. Second, it is very important to look at a design from the audience's point of view. It sounds as if the company genuinely tried to include elements of the old design in the new, but the changes were so drastic that any feeling of nostalgia was completely lost on viewers. Third, just because a design is created according to the traditional principles of design doesn't mean that it is suitable for the purpose the organization intends. The new Gap logo breaks no laws of design (as far as I know), but it is so plain and ordinary that it immediately bores the viewer.

     My perception of the old logo is a positive one. The white type on the dark blue background provides the reader with a good contrast and an unusual one, especially since the copy isn't lengthy--it's just 3 characters. Also, the traditional serif typeface evokes feelings of trustworthiness and classic elegance. The modern serif has a timeless look that makes it seem traditional without being too stuffy. It's formal, but not snobby; modern, but not too plain.

     In contrast, the new logo design seems harsh, cold, industrial and very boring. Helvetica is good for a lot of things, but the typeface just didn't fit Gap's image. The contrast between the blue square and black type is very poor.

     In short, Gap not only made a big mistake in drastically re-designing their logo in a struggling economy, but also managed to pick a lackluster replacement design.