Social Gap - When It Comes to Logos and Brands

In late 2010 casual wear chain, Gap decided the time had come to give its brand a fresh look in the form of a new logo - nothing unusual for a brand to do over the course of time. What was unusual was the outcry of displeasure for the new logo via Twitter, Facebook and numerous blogs, all compliments of the new social-driven world of marketing; http://bit.ly/9oTbZZ.

There is no denying the new marketing dynamic that is social media. But up until to this point, many of us have looked at it from the singular and myopic perspective of driving engagement. The reality that Gap's logo experience has so quickly awoken us to is that social has given those that have an allegiance to a brand more than just the opportunity to have a higher level of engagement but a true sense of ownership.

After quickly succumbing to the social-driven out cry from its presumably most ardent advocates by reverting back to its well-worn logo, Gap's North America president admitted that when they muster the courage to once again evolve the logo "we'll handle it in a different way." As logo redesign initiatives go it's safe to assume that Gap made a serious financial investment to create what they believed to be a fresh and attractive face for a well-established brand. However, regardless of the approach Gap followed it brings up a couple of thought-provoking points marketers need to ponder as we are all still learning the new social realm.

First, while the outcry was overwhelmingly negative, the question does have to be asked - Did the outcry truly represent the majority of those that patronize or have more than casual level of brand allegiance to Gap? Or does it represent the vocal minority? Also, let's look at other major brands who have tweaked their logos in recent memory to try to stay fresh. Good examples include Best Buy, Google, Pepsi, Xerox, Rhapsody and BP. No one really tweeted or posted much negativity about their new logos. And BP's new "green" logo only caught the attention of everyone after the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf... but that's a whole different branding discussion.

And when does a logo truly represent everything that is "the brand." Marketing 101 has taught us that a brand is more than a logo. With few exceptions, it's the interaction with that brand at point of engagement that has a much greater influence in forming the deep-seated emotional connection and attitude a consumer will ultimately associate with a brand over time. What might be an exception? I would offer Nike's swoosh logo as a case in point. Because Nike's logo is a graphic symbol and symbols by themselves can more easily invoke emotion within the human mind. But again, at the end of the day its the actual interaction with the brand versus a logo that plays the larger role in defining the brand.

So what might be a few take aways from Gap's experience outside the fact that many people don't like change? 

It reminds marketers that when making decisions that impact a brand, even a new logo, it pays to pay attention to all your audiences and seek out their opinions. Make them feel part of the process. It's a rule every smart marketer should live by. It does not mean you must adopt every suggestion those engaged with your brand have to offer. But if they feel part of the process and your approach is genuine they will appreciate you took the time to at least listen. Social channels, like Facebook and Twitter represent a great new avenues to accomplish this.

Also, even after gaining comments, insights and suggestions from those engaged with your brand, marketers need to be sure their decisions are made in balance with all the factors that impact a brand. And that those voicing the strongest opinions about your brand, positive or negative, truly represent the majority of those that engage with your brand. In the case of Gap and its new logo experience that is not so certain.

Juri Tults
Perpetual Marketing Observer & Student