Comparison and Contrast

Courtesy of cnn.com

  aWithout referring to the outrage that ensued when the Gap proposed a new logo, let's compare the old and the new logo objectively. By comparing the two logos to find out how they work and what makes them visually successful, we can better understand Gap's reasons for introducing a new logo. Gap spokeswoman Louise Callagy stated that "the logo change was part of that evolution of the brand from “classic, American design, to modern, sexy, cool,” We can infer from this that Gap is seeking a logo that is "modern, sexy, cool", while the old logo represents "classic American design." Though the success of one of these designs is currently up for debate, let's take a look at both of them to see if they fulfill Gap's goals.
    The old classic logo is in a tall, narrow, classic white serif font, the letters spaced relatively far apart compared to a generic typeface. The word is centered in a navy blue box, the contrast between white letters and dark blue making the logo stand out. Gap's classic logo is a perfect example of visual unity, for all the elements in the old logo seem to belong together, with the matching fonts and serifs in each letter and the perfect symmetry that exists between the word and the box surrounding it. The old whole logo has a very static look to it, like a square laid on a surface that will never move or get knocked over.  If the tall narrow letters had been placed closely together it would have looked visually unstable with the height being taller than the length; the space between the letters gives it a stability and durability and enduring quality. These qualities express iconic and classic in every way, because like a square, iconic is enduring and ever stable.
    Gap's new logo expresses modernity, with its sans serif type face and geometric mechanized overall look.  The new logo lacks visual unity because the awkwardly tacked on small blue square attracts negative attention to itself. As its focal point, the blue square has more visual weight to it than the bit "G" in the logo, throwing off the balance of the composition.Since the composition has an imbalance of visual weight to it, the whole look is hardly one of stability and permanence. The overlapping of the letters with the box in the new logo implies depth, making the iconic blue box seem diminished and far away. The value difference in gradient blue square expresses visually that the iconic blue box is degraded. The shrinking of the blue box and making the letters lowercase in the new logo deformalizes and takes weight away from the meaning of their brand. Asymmetry gives a whole composition like the new logo a less formal look, as well as the lowercase letters and generic Helvetica typeface. Whether that is desirable in a big clothing brand is questionable.
    All the visual elements in the new logo are unsuccessful, even amateurish, therefore one can only conclude that the Gap was not entirely serious about its new logo. A multi-million dollar company can surely acquire the best design team money can buy, one that wouldn't create a logo as unsophisticated as this. Even if Gap wants to sell cool "modern" clothing with their new modern image it still has to coincide with the brand's image of selling classics, albeit ones that are modern and cool.
    However, despite the apparent embarrassment of this whole "fiasco," what did the Gap achieve in the end? Intense media attention on a brand whose sales had been steadily slipping? Customers getting emotionally involved with the brand for fear it would lose its identity? Everybody talking about the Gap again? Those don't sound like bad things to me. The great design isn't in the logo here, but in this brilliant ploy. Even the president of Gap is "thrilled to see passionate debates unfolding" One thing is for certain: this has proven the power of social media and set a precedent for other mega brands to communicate more with a perpetually online society when it comes to matters of brand identity design.