New Gap logo withdrawn

In a exceptional testament to the ability of social networks, Gap withdrew its proposed redesign after Gap clients and on-line followers slammed the brand new Gap emblem – as clearly and rapidly as solely the Web makes possible. Greater than a thousand unfavourable comments had been posted to Gap’s Fb site, and @Gaplogo had its personal Twitter stream to lambaste the style giant for daring to change the enduring “blue field” logo.

The web outpouring worked. Only one week after Gap launched its Helvetica-round logo, it rescinded it with an internet mea culpa.

“Since we rolled out an updated model of our logo last week on our website, we’ve seen an outpouring of feedback from clients and the online neighborhood in help of the enduring blue field brand,” mentioned the statement from Marka Hansen, president of Gap in North America. “All roads were leading us again to the blue box, so we’ve made the choice not to use the brand new emblem on gap.com any further.”

Ms. Hansen managed to keep away from mentioning Facebook or Twitter by title, but did confer with “the online neighborhood” and added that she and her employees had “been listening to and watching all the feedback this previous week.” Gap dealt with the removal of the emblem with increased Fb aplomb. Last week, the logo changed on gap.com without fanfare, and was defended on Facebook two days later. This time, the announcement was made immediately on the social network.

Hansen additionally reminded followers that the blue box turns pink for the seasonal campaign, both to forestall offended complaints in a month or two or to start the vacation buzz early.

Most of the new on-line chatter celebrated the return to the classic logo. By Tuesday afternoon, virtually 2,000 folks had clicked that they “like” Hansen’s announcement of the emblem’s withdrawal.

Other feedback speculated about advertising motives behind this tempest on the Twitter feed. A dozen denounced it as a publicity stunt, while others speculated that the Gap had been hoping for a crowdsourced emblem but chickened out. “An organization as large as The Gap would not launch a model new logo by just slapping it up in one place on their website. If this had been a real brand redesign it would have been introduced way more persistently throughout all kinds of mediums.”

“Seems to be like no matter you guys did, labored,” wrote Kym Zwick. “Whether optimistic, or adverse, it received people talking about Gap again… I’m keen to bet sales will skyrocket today. Advertising is a funny little thing is not it??”

A quantity of comments announced that clients are planning to run to Gap and buy one thing as we speak in celebration, so Ms. Zwick may be onto something.

It now seems that Gap will use its basic logo for the foreseeable future. Gap executives additionally acknowledged they’d realized an object lesson within the role and power of social networking media. “We recognize that we missed the chance to have interaction with the net group,” wrote Hansen.

“There may be a time to evolve our emblem, but when and when that point comes, we’ll deal with it in a different way,” she concluded. Marketing students, pay attention: If Gap did indeed be taught its lesson or orchestrated this on-line furor, its next redesign attempt should be a social advertising masterpiece.