image from Brand New

Established in 1969 in San Francisco, Gap is one of the most symbolically American clothing brands creating a strong identity in the fashion market for simple, stylish high street clothes - ( little too preoccupied with linen for my liking but hey-ho) but there is no doubt it is a brand that most Americans hold dear to their hearts.

I’m sure we have all owned something from The Gap in our lifetime, whether it be one of their basic tees or strikingly branded hoodies, and it has a visible presence across our high streets as well. We know the brand, we know their style and approach, we know that a blue square logo is synonymous to the company. However the powers that be think that a fresh new approach is what the company needs to move forward in the market, refreshing the brand if you will, and this has caused all kinds of outrage across the world.

For a major company like Gap to roll this rebrand out with such little fanfare or awareness, does beg the question - are they worried??

Is this like the ‘New Coke’ scandal of years ago, to create such awareness and outrage so that the ‘Classic’ logo can be reintroduced to a greater fanfare later on down the line? Or is it truly a misstep from a symbolically commercial juggernaut of American culture?

The new logo uses two elements; one I love; one I hate, lets feel the love first. It makes good use of the popular, clean and simple typeface of Helvetica, which makes the brand really pop out, you can imagine it on the large image based advertisements that Gap specialise in, either in the black you see here, or whited out. I truly love the risk they have taken in using such a typeface, because it really does stray incredibly far from the image that Gap has built up world wide.

What I hate is the use of such a lazy design element; a gradient square. The creative equivalent to a ham and jam sandwich. Why make it a gradient? Why not use a solid colour? Who knows, but you can start to see why this is causing so much consternation in America. The Gap brand is very visual, and rooted in a deep history in a wonderfully colourful city of San Francisco. The original typographic logo was a revelation, almost beautiful.

Stunning. Why they didn’t return to the use of this logo and branding is beyond me, and many others it may seem. They have used this branding periodically, but seriously, if you were going to rely on a heavily typographic logo, then they should have looked no further than this option, it is as relevent as a piece of typographical design today as it has ever been.

The new logo reflects none of this I think. It is reminiscent of a poorly constructed logo that a company can throw together in Microsoft Word. Working with young designers as I do, it is hearbreaking to realise that when they move out into the wider world that the creativeness that they are learning and displaying would be unwelcome in a traditionally creative brand like Gap.

This has truly caused a lot of fuss and you can add your own opinions and ‘follow’ the Gap logo, (a fake logo account, how sad are some people?) on twitter @GapLogo - it does give an amazing insight into how people respond to brand changes outside the industry.

In addition to this go over to > http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/follow-up_gapgate.php

To see just how strong the reaction has been.

Thanks for reading!

Adam