Gap's recent failed attempt at a logo redesign is only the latest in what seems to be a monthly cycle these days. Looking back over the past couple of years, we see Tropicana, Pepsi, AOL, and evenApple being raked over the coals for similar missteps, and provoking considerable buzz from the design and brand industry.
Unfortunately, these pundits are almost all talking about the wrong thing...especially in the recent Gap debacle. Whether it new logo was designed by a well-intentioned but misguided “logo committee”, or an out-of-touch branding firm, the ongoing debate indicates, more than anything, the branding and corporate identity industry's myopia.
Simply put, no one really cares about the logo anymore. Today, people are more interested in what a brand can do for them. Great brands are discovering that logos or advertisements are losing relevance, and instead put their efforts into creating social brand platforms that invite participation and create value in authentic and relevant ways. The real reason the Gap logo failed was that it wasn't backed by any of this; the same goes for Tropicana and the rest.
Social brand platforms require a new way of thinking: a cross between advertising, branding and design. In contrast to static logos and corporate identities where the focus is on control and consistency, social brand platforms have five key characteristics: they’re useful, social, living, layered and curated.
read more here.
//
https://sites.google.com/site/mayuradocs/PinIt.png
2 comments:
These are interesting ideas (tactics) the Gap could utilize to make itself relevant in newer and, arguably, better ways. However, Mr. McCallion never really supports his declarations that static graphics are superficial and that no one really cares about the logo anymore. On the contrary, every company he offers as an example (Nike, Converse, etc.) utilizes—and relies heavily on—a well established, highly recognizable, static graphic. That they are building and strengthening their brands with consumers in new and creative ways really has nothing to do with their logos.
The idea that a brand is not a logo is not new. I would argue though, that even though the means used by companies to maintain relevancy change over time, the idea that consumers need some type of visual mark to represent/identify the brand (ie. a logo), remains constant.
If no one cared about a logo, then what caused the uproar? If logos are irrelevant, why don't Nike and Converse simply stop using them and move forward with nothing but their names (written in Helvetica of course) and their social brand platforms?
Touché Lee!
There is something very primal about images and marks that are representations of entities. that isn't going anywhere soon. what I like about this article is that the writer is unafraid to ask it. or at least suggest it.
Post a Comment