+44 (0) 114 360 1117 | info@brand-design.co.uk
Dear, Oh Dear…
Posted on

If you havn’t heard already, US clothing giant GAP have gone for a rebrand… and it sucks balls.

I’ve never been a fan of their stores but I did like the old logo. The new one on the other hand is not great. For me it’s far too generic and the blue gradient isn’t working at all. Who knows, maybe they’ve got great plan for implementing it in their ad campaigns but it would have to be REALLY great to change my mind on this one.

We’ll have to wait and see.


Gap have now actually asked via twitter, for designers to submit; without pay, their own alternatives to this terrible logo. The nerve. They can’t afford to hire a professional logo designer???


Related Posts

13 Comments | Post a Comment
October 7, 2010 at 8:07 am

Couldn’t agree more Matthew, their previous logo is established worldwide making this a very brave (bordering suicidel) move which I can’t understand what so ever. Have you read any press releases on why they felt the need to change?

I look at the new logo and think “utility company” rather than fashion brand :(

Matthew Harpin
October 7, 2010 at 9:21 am

Hi Chris,

First of all I would like to thank you for being the very first comment on my brand new blog! (Hopefully first of many ;) )

Regarding the logo, unfortunately there has been no official statement of any kind from GAP (as yet) as far as I’m aware, which is a little unusual I think. It’s a shame ‘cos I’d love to hear their rationale behind the change of direction.

The more I look at this new logo the less I understand it. The type is unmodified Helvetica, a classic font undoubtedly but in this application it looks utterly pedestrian. As for the blue square, I guess they wanted to keep some visual tie to the old logo but the gradient, size and position don’t work for me.

October 7, 2010 at 11:49 am

The new one is so ugly. what were they thinking??!

October 7, 2010 at 11:52 am

Horrendous. So bad.

I just don’t get it. Must be a director with Word art.

Matthew Harpin
October 7, 2010 at 12:06 pm

It looks like we’re all in agreement!

October 8, 2010 at 12:57 pm

They seem to have thrown away their whole brand identity; it doesn’t look like the same company.

October 8, 2010 at 1:03 pm

You’re right Nick. It seems suicidal for a company that had achieved such massive brand awareness.

Harnek Khela
October 9, 2010 at 12:22 am

Trust me, I’m not just in disagreement for disagreements sake, but I actual like the logo! Whilst admitedley, I dont own any of their branded garments I might just be tempted to pop into one of their outlets on my next clothes shopping trip! From a purely consumer perspective with no experience in the graphic design field, let me just say that the logo exudes a kind of ‘assured confidence’. The bold, conversly black lettering stands out much more than the tall, slender, typeset of its predecesor something I beleive to be nothing short of a masterstroke that will surley attract new consumers to a brand that seemed outdated and on the wain. Lets face it, GAP was previously a one trick pony that didnt seem to know where it was going beyond those far to cas’ branded hoodies that every man and his dog seem to own! (not helped by the countless fakes that appeared to flood the market further eroding profits and making them appear far more attainable than i’m sure GAP would have liked!) It’s ‘clean’, concise and seems to have an air of authority about it. I like the small square in the corner or ‘distance’ as It seems to suggests. Surley this suggests a company that wants to remind it customers of its proud heritage whilst also conveying a sense of having ‘moved forward’ as a significant global force in 21st century fashion for the modern generation? I look of that logo and cant help thinking that designers must have been inspired by famous global brand logos such as 3MM, BENCH, and prehaps even MICROSOFT. I excitedly await a new winter collection from a brand that appears to have rediscovered itself!

October 10, 2010 at 2:19 pm

Hi Harnek,

Thanks for a great (if incorrect) analysis lol.

I’ve got to say it is interesting to hear the opinions of someone from outside of the design world. I do agree with you on one point….

“…the small square in the corner or ‘distance’ as It seems to suggests. Surley this suggests a company that wants to remind it customers of its proud heritage whilst also conveying a sense of having ‘moved forward’ as a significant global force in 21st century fashion for the modern generation?”

I agree that this is both their intention and a great idea, my criticism however is in the execution, for me it’s clumsy and bland, and also VERY dated, and as such it completely fails in it’s intention (that you correctly defined). The gradient is simply ridiculous, very 1990′s, and the typography is nothing short of mundane. The logo as a whole, for me, is reminiscent of a supermarket’s in-house clothing brand rather than an up-market, quality retailer.

The old logo was simple, recognizable, even iconic. The new one is generic and confused, rather than speaking of a company that has “rediscovered itself”, it speaks of a company that has most definitely lost it’s way, and I’m sure will struggle to claw back any cohesive brand identity.

Thanks for your input though Harnek, you are very persuasive (almost persuaded me lol), I’d love to hear more from you here on Brand Design Blog.

October 10, 2010 at 10:42 pm

I can’t believe a company so reliant on brand identity has blown it so baddly. My wife (with no interest in graphic design or branding) said it looks like the logo of a “boring software company”.

The gradient, as you say, belongs to the 90′s (I’m not looking forward to seeing that printed on a t-shirt), and while the Helvetica typeface might have been a big deal in the 60′s, these days its so ubiquitous (or its derivatives at least) that I don’t think it’s possible for anyone to mistake it for stylish.

I’m trying not

Harnek Khela
October 10, 2010 at 11:56 pm

Please allow me to make a few more important points for your consideration that I feel are fundemental to my argument but were non-the-less left out in my earlier statement.
The logo as a whole, I beleive can be described as what people in the industry call ‘minimalistic’. Think French Connections FCUK campaign. By that, I mean the fact that It only comprises two colours (black & blue) makes it easily recognisable. Synics will dismiss it as ‘generic’ and somewhat lazy, however, what you dont want with a company logo is a multitude of colours, shapes etc and an overall feeling of ‘theres too much going on!’. The guys at GAP aren’t stupid. For sure, they will have mulled over hundreds of far more intricate designs before settling on this one. I strongly beleive, that once the logo is intergrated into a ‘fun’ ad television/billboard ad campaign, the old logo will soon slip from public conciousness and become something of an industrial relic possibly to be re-introduced as the ‘retro’ logo some twenty or thirty years down the line. I anticipate expertly executed t.v commercials of youthful individuals jumping up and down with big smiles on their faces as they frolic in the sun with their onscreen freinds as they revel in the conveyed feel good factor that GAPs trendy yet apparently comfy clothes apears to be giving them whilst an uplifting tune from the latest up and coming pop group with potential plays alongside. Think Apples Ipod Ad for the tv campaign, and prehaps even united colors of Benetton for the billboards!. In closing, can I refer still doubters to the ‘we-recruited -a-two-year-old to design-this-one’ eyesore that is the logo for the London 2012 Olympic games!- I rest my case!

October 11, 2010 at 1:36 pm

Ha! Nice try Harnek!

We’re still not convinced though :)

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Updates Via
css gallery