Crowdsource This Blog Post
So this happened and started the ball rollin'.
A helvetica-fonted brand name running into a gradient-shaded blue square.
One question remains, however.
Harking on the theme I brought up in my first Confessional post, curving the dialogue around the creation of a replacement ugly logo, Gap insured that they would be the on the tip of everyone's tongues.
Could Gap not have been satisfied by the social media bump they experienced after the Groupon spectacle that they had to one-up themselves with this logo fiasco?
If it was just a publicity stunt, it's unclear if this will pay off.
From what I've seen, there's a seething anger coming from designers and consumers alike, calling for boycotts of Gap and claims of being unethical.
Regardless of what it truly was, we'll see how this hurt/helped Gap in the coming months.
Do you think this was some publicity stunt or just another example of the mishandling of a social marketing initiative?
Shout outs to @GapLogo, @OldGapLogo, craplogo.me, and the dozens of other new media machinations created during the brouhaha.
Previously in logo-speak: Logo Fail of Olympic Proportions; Logolicious.
A helvetica-fonted brand name running into a gradient-shaded blue square.Ugh.
And after the dust settled, and everyone and their grandma weighed in about how they felt that the new logo was so terrible, speculation began: was it a farce?
Then this happened. The President of Gap, Marka Hansen posted on Huffington Post, dispelling the rumors, sticking up for Laird and Partner's efforts, and playing the role of peacemaker.
At the same time this went live on Facebook. Through all the threats of calls to the AIGA and talk of boycotting, a few groups (them and them) actually stepped up and starting posting designer ideas.
Then, with the threat of the brand losing it's identity through "crowdsourcing", this happened.
Gap fell, like all the other Goliaths to the Davids and their combined slingshots of hate, and returned to using the good ol' blue box.
One question remains, however.Could this have all just been a publicity stunt?
Harking on the theme I brought up in my first Confessional post, curving the dialogue around the creation of a replacement ugly logo, Gap insured that they would be the on the tip of everyone's tongues.
Could Gap not have been satisfied by the social media bump they experienced after the Groupon spectacle that they had to one-up themselves with this logo fiasco?
If it was just a publicity stunt, it's unclear if this will pay off.
From what I've seen, there's a seething anger coming from designers and consumers alike, calling for boycotts of Gap and claims of being unethical.
Regardless of what it truly was, we'll see how this hurt/helped Gap in the coming months.
Do you think this was some publicity stunt or just another example of the mishandling of a social marketing initiative?
Shout outs to @GapLogo, @OldGapLogo, craplogo.me, and the dozens of other new media machinations created during the brouhaha.
Sean Sutherland, Associate Account Executive/Crowdsorcerer
