Seen below, the logo is indeed quite different than the old one, however, it uses a few of the same elements, such as the bold company name and blue square. The new logo is simple, which is reflective of the Gap style and brand, but it somehow looks very generic. Perhaps they are trying to project a hipper image? It’s hard to say.
Gap executives initially remained mum while the public had a field day disecting the design. And, like what happened with BP, some are using social media tools to do so. A funny Twitter account has been created, everyone from independent designers to ad agencies is offering to create new designs, and the online chatter has been overwhelmingly negative with the most common sentiment being that it looks like something a child created using a clip-art gallery.
When Gap finally responded – via Facebook, which is actually not a bad place to communicate since this is where the chatter is already occurring – they confused the whole mess even more. Apparently this is a crowd-sourcing project? Or is Gap backpeddling because of all the negative chatter?
Some feel Gap is taking advantage of designers by asking for spec work, others feel that the standard social media contest is played out and Gap is at least waking people up. My opinion is that the logo is amateur and whether this is meant as a buzz-building campaign or an actual redesign, it is poor logic to mess with a logo of a company ranked the 84th most-valuable brand in the world, according to Interbrand’s 2010 study.
Gap does have people talking, but the saying “all PR is good PR” is not really true. Was this a stunt? A calculated risk? Or is Gap backpeddling amidst the public outcry?