GAP and a new logo

Gap released a new logo recently, and it seems to have fired up a storm. It's also become an interesting case study into the changing world of brand development and use of social networking tools.

I'm not necessarily a huge GAP follower, but an article about the negative response to GAP's new logo caught my interest. I should also note here I'm not a branding expert, but I've been involved in a couple of brand roll-outs and the area intrigues me.

From the experiences I've had with branding, a lot of thought, time, energy, and, of course, expense, goes into creating a new brand. Items we take for granted, like whether all caps was used, bold font, italics used or not, etc., are taken into account, because to the average consumer, they actually can make an impact. This logo change was no exception, I'm sure - they spent two years working on it. I'd be surprised if, during that two years, they didn't have focus groups, test cases, etc., that they used to fly the various designs past people. One thing about a follow-up article regarding the negative response to the new logo that caught my eye was the comment that people internal to Gap, Inc., were really excited about it. It made me wonder how much work they did with groups external to Gap, Inc. And, apparently, with the feedback Gap has received, so do a lot of other people.

But aside from the new logo, why Gap felt it needed one, and why they decided to go with this design, there's a larger impact that their response might have on the general advertising and branding industry. Most companies, I think, when receiving poor feedback about something like a new logo, would either ignore the public's feedback, or else they'd respond with reasons behind their new logo. (Apple's response to the backlash of the iPad is a recent example. Plenty of comments made, but Apple didn't change the name of the device.) Gap, however, seems to have put their logo roll-out on hold and potentially gather input from the general public.

Smart move? I'm not sure. It's hard to ignore the fact that social media is affecting business. And while business is still wrapping its head around how to take full advantage of the power behind social media, making a move like reacting to negative feedback on a logo change to the point that you're inviting logo designs from the public might be going too far in terms of harnessing that power. However, how much is too much, and how much is too little? Here are some ideas on better ways to have approached this.

• Communicate early, communicate often. Gap acknowledges its changing audience needs. In this case, though, I think that acknowledgment may have come a little late. One of the keys to social media seems to be communicating frequently with your audience in an effort to be a bit more transparent about what's going on. In this case, perhaps letting the social communities know they were in the process of making brand changes, and why they were making the changes, may have helped. Sure, there would likely still have been backlash, but Gap could have leveraged some of that into their communications plan for their new logo.
• Educate. I often think a little audience education can go a long ways in communicating changes. Letting people know there is a change in the works is one thing; educating people about the change itself is another. In this case, a little education about logos may have helped in the reaction to the negative feedback received. The trick would be communicating that education in such a way as to avoid the appearance of justifying one's actions.
• When things go bad, acknowledge where you went wrong. I read awhile ago that a large pizza chain used the widespread results of a taste test where they scored horribly to their advantage. They leveraged that information to say they improved their recipe to taste better. In Gap's case, however, the way they acknowledged the feedback led to more complications (now people think it was just a social media experiment). It comes back to a seeming expectation for transparency, though. One way to accomplish this better may have been to simply say they had gathered feedback from focus groups, etc., assuring their audience that this effort wasn't completely bottled up inside the company. Then, instead of opening things up into a free-for-all logo design submission forum, give people an opportunity to sign up if they want to participate in future online focus groups when the need exists.