Monday, October 25, 2010

Please Mind the Gap


I hear that phrase so often, now that I'm living in London. But after the Gap's logo change and then non-change event, I can't help but think of the organization when I hear it on the tube, almost as though it's saying "please don't mind the Gap they're figuring things out".  I may seem a bit late commenting on this, but I feel there's so much to say.

First, I'm a firm believer that if you're going to change your logo, there needs to be a strong rationale behind the change and usually some brand innovations (i.e. new products, services, etc.) to provide the reasoning behind the change in identity. In fact, a few months ago, I mentioned this in a post regarding the rebranding work on Reebok and Comcast.

I understand Gap's need to evolve to become more competitive and relevant in the market - something they've been struggling with for some time now. However, spending time and money on a new identity may not have been the most wise investment.

For all intents and purposes, the Gap logo didn't have any negative associations. Rather, the brand may have appeared stale, which in turn the logo would naturally adopt this perception. However, actions have a greater opportunity to revitalize the Gap than a new logo.

I mean how can the Gap compete when they are struggling to define their positioning as consumers' fashion consumption habits have evolved from conformity through khakis , in the 90's, to the desire to be a unique individual, today - something Zara and H&M are delivering through their fast turn around times.  Not to say a retailer focused on the basics can't be successful - hello J.Crew. You just need to own a position in the market.

So maybe looking at these core brand elements, and focusing on positioning through innovation, would make Gap fresh and relevant again, rather than trying to seem new with a new identity.

The second part of this whole logo fiasco was how much impact the consumer community had. And, frankly, I was impressed that the Gap was so quick to respond.  In my opinion, a week to scrap a logo, which usually takes a lot of time and resources, is fast. Yes, there is speculation that this may have been a PR stunt due to the seeming lack of effort put into the redesign. But, it's still great to see a brand respond to the voices of the consumer, especially when they are clearly right!

With over 2000 Facebook comments, in conjunction with negative twitter sentiment, it is clear that Marty Neumeier is so right - the brand is not what the organization says it is, rather it's what the consumers say it is.

Mind you, I was intrigued when Marka Hansen, president of Gap Brand North America said, "[we] missed the opportunity to engage with the online community" and "if and when that time comes, we'll handle it in a different way". Does this mean they will crowdsource their next new identity? 

Two things come to mind when I think of this:

First, I personally don't think consulting the community every time a brand wants to evolve is ideal. People instinctually don't like change, so if you're regularly consulting them on all major changes, this process will inevitably slow down impacting the brand's need to evolve and change with the times - something consumers don't always see.

Don't confuse this with the positive crowdsourced changes/ideas that come from initiatives like MyStarbucksIdea.com or Dell's Idea Storm. Lets call these micro-innovations, which are a great way to tweak the brand experience and involve consumers.

However, some brands need to make larger changes to evolve, but it should be to adjust the sails to stay its course in reaching its overarching brand purpose, while maintaining relevancy in a way that doesn't confuse the brand in its market space.

Second, I'm fairly certain this consumer reaction would not have happened if the change was relevant to consumers and reflected some kind of positive change.

I'm very curious what the Gap will do next. I sincerely hope they focus more on innovation & getting back to their roots to begin to reclaim a dominant position within the market, while enhancing their brand value. After all, it has been clear that people are still very passionate about the brand.

2 comments:

  1. Rather, the brand may have appeared stale, which in turn the logo would naturally adopt this perception.

    ReplyDelete