Mark Ritson’s article on Gap’s bungled rebranding (go to http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/Gap-Rebranding) sparked much debate on the website. Here are some of your comments below:
This wasn’t about the process, it was the fact that the new logo had no brand values whatsoever. It could have been for a piece of accounting software! All changes should be relevant but this was saying “let’s be different”, which actually meant throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I just wonder whether this is a ridiculous brand management example or a deliberate effort to get cheap publicity. Mind you, the crowdsourcing project attracted millions of entries for the logo redesign.
This may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for Gap. Already it is signalling an improved sales forecast. But brand managers should resist the temptation of doing the same when seeing their revenues decline as it can permanently affect brand equity.
Am I the only cynic thinking this “redesign” was dreamt up by the PR agency? The new logo was so bad surely they weren’t actually serious?
So Gap’s Marka Hansen says: “Ultimately, we’ve learned just how much energy there is around our brand…”? Gap needed to launch a new logo to experience its brand value? Something must have gone pretty wrong in its marketing and business analysis department. GAP obviously was not aware of its brand awareness. Just another example how often even big international blue chips do not conduct proper research.
The logo is a variable (one of many) in the trust factor. What Gap has done is just enough to unsettle the loyal core and encourage some of them to find comfort in the sea of sameness that fill the racks at Hollisters, Aeropostal, A&F and Old Navy.