In response to an outpouring of criticism from online blogs and consumers, Gap has reverted to its recognizable blue-box logo less than a week after the casual-clothing retailer unveiled a more modern version. The apparel maker, famous for its chinos and jeans, said that it would no longer be using the new logo and was going back to the original.
Customers reacted strongly on social media sites after Gap rolled out the new logo last week. Mark Hansen, president of Gap North America, wrote late Monday that the company had seen an “outpouring of comments from customers and the online community in support” of the old logo. She added that while the company moved to address the feedback and explore how it could tap into those reactions, all roads led it back to the blue box logo.
She said Gap learned a lot from the process, and it is clear Gap “did not go about this in the right way. We recognize that we missed the opportunity to engage with the online community. This wasn’t the right project at the right time for crowd sourcing.”
Bill Chandler, a spokesman for Gap, said that the company had been evolving in the past year and has seen positive reaction to a number of initiatives. He said that while changing the logo was another way Gap sought to move the brand forward, it was “a step too far.”
Valuable lessons can be learned from the short lived re-branding initiative, particularly in the area of market research. Whenever a company is looking to make branding changes, thorough market research is a necessity — a new direction cannot be pursued on a limb, it has to be supported by research. Stakeholders need to be consulted and their responses need to be carefully quantified and examined. Their input is a crucial part of the decision making process and cannot be ignored.
GAP should have studied how consumers perceived their original logo, and how these perceptions aligned with their desired brand position. If the GAP had conducted this research they could have saved substantial advertising and employee productivity dollars.
Market research needs to be ongoing, but is a required activity for major branding decisions. Companies need to be completely in tune with their customers. They need to know not only what their customers are buying, but also what customers are feeling and saying. After all, if your decisions are not consistent with customers’ values and preferences, the marketing outcomes are bound to be less than desirable.
At the very least, Gap got the message quickly and did not cling to a bad idea. However, if the company had conducted adequate research, we would not be talking about this marketing GAP on our blog this week.
That’s the research perspective – but the savvy marketer in all of us should be asking whether GAP brand managers intentionally committed this brand faux-pas to generate publicity in the same way that celebrities seek out relevance by attracting negative media attention. Seriously – look at the ‘new logo.’ Do you think GAP was really going to destroy their brand with that generic, non-associative graphic?
I was having this discussion with one of my “bosses” the other day. He brought up an interesting point, he said “Show me a NEW article of clothing with a NEW gap logo on it, and I’ll believe it was more than just a publicity stunt.”
I thought he followed some sound logic. If GAP had been re-branding themselves, they would have started rolling out product with the new image on it. So this just REEKS of PR move, and guess what, it worked.