Leonie Bulman's recent articles
Social media criticism says new Gap logo “damaged brand reputation”
The negative social media response to the new Gap logo shows that it is important to test consumer reaction to important brand events before launch. Consumers were unimpressed with the “cheap” logo and the “out of touch” reaction by Gap to the criticism. Some explicitly state that the issue has “damaged brand reputation”.
US clothes retailer Gap has been forced to scrap a new logo just one week after its launch after hundreds of disapproving comments piled up up on its Facebook wall, Twitter and in blogs and forums. Gap initially responded to the criticism by using Facebook to release an explanation for the new logo by their President, Marka Hansen, then asking consumers to submit their own designs for the logo. Finally, it was announced today that the new logo and crowdsourcing will be scrapped altogether and Gap will be sticking with their old logo.
WaveMetrix social media monitoring shows how the issue of the new logo has damaged Gap brand reputation. Consumers say the “cheap”, “unprofessional” logo is an “atrocity” that will “damage the brand”. They say the explanation was “empty” and that it shows Gap are “out of touch with consumers”. Others argue that the crowdsourcing approach is “amateur” and "not well considered". However, some praise the whole logo issue as a “brilliant marketing ploy to attract attention”.
Consumer discussion is very negative, both about the new logo and Gap’s response to criticism of the logo:
- Consumers respond to the President’s explanation letter and Gap’s idea of crowdsourcing for new designs: They say the explanation was “empty words for a bad decision” of which there is “no excuse”. They say the President “should be fired” for “being out of touch” and add that crowdsourcing is “amateur”, “stupid” and “doesn’t turn heads anymore”. Some people say the new logo was a “brilliant social media stunt” that “captures attention” and “makes Gap relevant again”. However, a few reply saying that the “stunt created buzz, but it was bad buzz”
- Consumers agree that the new logo looks “cheap”, “horrible” and “dull”: They say the logo “stinks” and looks like a “free clip-art image” for a “computer or software company”. People say the logo is “unsophisticated” and “unprofessional” and Gap should “keep the old logo” that is “classy” and “iconic”. They say the new logo is an “insult to the Gap brand” and would “destroy brand recognition”. A few say if Gap employ the new logo they will “have to shop elsewhere”
- A few consumers discuss Gap products: They say the products “need new designs” or need to be “more innovative” rather than the logo
The issue of the new logo has had a negative effect on Gap brand image:
- One in five consumers who comment have a positive image of Gap: Some say Gap has been “very clever” as the new logo was a “brilliant marketing move” to “capture attention”. Others say they “admire the Gap brand” and the old “classy logo” but say the new logo could “destroy brand reputation”
- Three quarters of consumers indicate that the logo issue has hurt the Gap brand image: They say the “atrocity” of the new logo was a “stupid marketing decision” that has “destroyed brand reputation”. They say Gap “don’t know how to be creative”, are “out of touch” and the crowdsourcing idea is “amateur” and a “mistake”