who needs a logo anyway
Out of context: Reply #7
- Started
- Last post
- 19 Responses
- harlequino0
"The Real Lesson of the Gap Debacle: Logos Aren't Key Anymore"
No, the lesson is that no one has figured out how to do a massive rebrand yet when everything is social, shareable, and can be torn to shreds in minutes. Even the biggest companies in the world are lost when how to deal with it.
The issue with Gap had less to do with the quality of the logo, and more do with executing the rebrand campaign and PR. It never felt like the company got behind it or prepared for it. It went out in the form of a press release, and got spread around like a million VP's sending the creative guy's comp to his wife to see what she thinks.
Anyone (who's any good) in branding knows that a logo is one piece of the puzzle. Discussions about whether or not it matters to have a logo is dumb because of course it matters. But it all matters, that's the thing. Really good branding and rebranding comes from the core of what a company does and making sure they follow through on what the brand is supposed to be about.
I suspect real brand innovation right now has more to do with figuring out the right kind of campaign to roll out something this massive. If Gap had put the full weight of it's entire company behind the rebrand, launched massive creative support and social efforts, and just hit us as hard as they could — ugly logo or not, things would probably have panned out differently.
Sidenote: their lack of support on the new logo may also have something to do with not having complete confidence in it. Which is equally stupid.