Why Marketers and Designers Need to Shut Up About the Gap Logo Change Now
Earlier this week, Gap (GPS) attempted to put an end to the brouhaha surrounding its logo redesign. But the fury, speculation, advice, suggestions, and submissions for new logos continues relatively unabated, even among my colleagues here at BNET. I on the other hand, have purposefully avoided posting. Why? Because when I look at the success or failure of an apparel brand like Gap â€" the logo has very little impact on what matters â€" sales.
Fellow BNET blogger Niland Mortimer uses Pepsi's Tropicana rebranding fiasco to illustrate how passionate customers made the beverage company cave to their demands to bring back the old look so they could "find" their favorite juice among the rows of generic supermarket brands. Though he recognizes that unlike Tropicana, Gap's logo hadn't caused a decrease in sales yet, Mortimer poses the question of who, exactly, turned to social media to voice their outrage on what they deemed to be an inferior design. "Loyal Gap customers whose own identity was associated with their clothing brand of choice?" He doesn't offer an answer, but does suggest marketing departments involve their customers in the process.
But crowdsourcing logo designs isn't going to help any mid-priced apparel brand sell more clothes. While hardcore fashionistas and label-hungry aspirational shoppers are dying to dangle Gucci from their wrists and sport Dolce & Gabbana on the back pocket of their (artfully) distressed jeans, brandishing a Gap logo on a hip or chest hasn't exactly been the driver for the company's billions of dollars of revenue since 1969.
In fact, founder Don Fisher is famous for saying, "I created Gap with a simple idea: to make it easier to find a pair of jeans." Indeed, Gap started peddling Levi's and t-shirts (basics!) and soon developed its own proprietary brand. The most notable thing about Gap jeans, historically? Their lack of embellishment. Through the decades, both men's and women's Gap jeans were focused on fit and style rather than how prominent or decorative to make the tag sewn into the waistband.
In the mid-90s, under the direction of Mickey Drexler (now CEO of J. Crew), Gap, already the second largest apparel brand in the world, continued growing partly by expanding the idea of basics to include khakis, button ups, and all manner of "casual Friday" office-appropriate threads. The 21st century ushered in an age of intense competition from the likes of fast fashion megabrands such as Zara and H&M, and the malls filled with dedicated teen retailers such as American Eagle (AEO) and Abercrombie & Fitch (ANF). Gap floundered. And it's still trying to get back on its feet.
During these ups-and-downs, Gap's logo went through several iterations. Did anyone notice, or care? Perhaps. Did they stop spending because of it? Not likely. Mortimer suggests "a better first step would have been to introduce new styles that reflected their desire for a "more contemporary, modern expression." Or, heck, just update the stores, and talk about it on Twitter."
That statement clearly illustrates why critics of Gap's branding effort are missing the boat (not to mention demonstrating that they are only looking at the "problem" through a narrow lens). Gap's already introduced new styles. The grand poobah of basics went wisely back to its (more successful) roots with two new collections earlier this year: 1969 Premium Denim and trousers.
Initial reaction was lukewarm, but Gap pressed on investing in a microsite for the jeans, a dedicated design office, a documentary, and most importantly, continuing to build a global bricks-and mortar and e-commerce presence. Gap's most recent comps were down 2 percent overall, worse than expected. But breaking that down, the slip is mostly due to Banana Republic coming in flat versus expectations of a 6 percent increase, and Old Navy's 5 percent dip. Gap namesake stores are down 1 percent. All is not bleak though, the company brought in $1.34 billion for the five-week period ended October 2, up 1 percent.
And if the poll requested by AdAge and taken Ipsos Observer is any indication, sales won't be swinging dramatically in either direction in spite of "logo-gate." The independent research company polled 1000 consumers and found just 17 percent even aware that anything had changed. What may have more bearing on sales is that 29 percent said their decision to purchase a company's product would be influenced by a new company logo, while 43 percent said it would not. The remaining 28 percent were unsure.
Gap's been relegated to the shadowy corners of retail of late, but now has a tremendous opportunity to take this furor and the spotlight and try to win over that unsure 28 percent. Go forth and Facebook/tweet the heck out of those new styles, team Gap. Hint: to capture a younger customer, its all about contests (think Urban Outfitter's haul videos, and FCUK's collab with Chatroulette).
Bottom line -- confirmed by from my own informal poll of Gap customers ranging in age from those remember who shopped there in its 90s heyday and to that most desirable demographic: millenials -- "We're going to keep shopping there because we're looking for stylish basics at reasonable prices." A fifteen-year old respondent said it best, "It's about the quality of the clothes. Who cares what the logo looks like."
Related: