Gap logo change = disaster

If you’ve been paying attention to our little corner of the blogosphere, one thing you know is what my counterpart and I do to make our modest (MODEST) livings – he’s a journalist and I’m in public relations and marketing. Funny, right? We’re supposed to hate each other according to the standards set by our respective trades. But hey, we’re all about breaking barriers and building bridges here at The Unusual Suspects camp.

One hot topic in the PR/marketing world right now is retail giant Gap changing its logo (as you can see). A logo change from a huge corporation is always big news – it’s kind of like a celebrity undergoing major plastic surgery, only more extreme. No one is sure why they did it, everyone wonders how it will affect their personality and there’s sure to be mishaps along the way.

Typically, a logo change will take months from the idea phase to the unveiling of the new design and brand promise. The company usually employs an ad firm that does extensive research on consumer trends, demographics, emerging trends, psychological predispositions, purchasing behaviors, organizational culture, blah blah blah, and eventually, after hours of research, brainstorming and architecting, brings the client the IDEA.

The client then gives the ad firm a dozen reasons why the IDEA isn’t correct.

After much back and forth between the two parties, a watered down, often bastardized version of the initial IDEA comes to fruition. And this, mind you, is after seven or eight people from the client company, who have little-to-no educated insight into branding, have weighed in.

The Gap logo in its most recent form undoubtedly fell victim to this process. In a recent poll of PR and marketing executives, 88 percent of the 300+ respondents just plain don’t like it, and for many different reasons. One creative director said it’s the worst he’s ever seen. Ever. Ouch.

So on to the fun part: Gap’s response to the criticism. On its Facebook page last week, the company stated “We know this logo created a lot of buzz, and we’re thrilled to see passionate debates unfolding! So much so we’re asking you to share your designs. We love our version, but we’d like to see other ideas. Stay tuned for details in the next few days on this crowd sourcing project.”

How does this sit with you? I suppose there are two ways you can look at it: 1) Gap is making a noble attempt at engaging its audience and fostering a two way conversation with those who proudly wear its clothing. OR 2) Gap, a major corporation, probably worth billions, is looking for free design work. Like they’re some local, nonprofit health and wellness center, funded solely by grants and donations.

I’m somewhere in the middle of the road on this issue. One of the main reasons companies get involved with social media is to get people talking about its brand. So when a conversation is started, it only makes sense to get involved and contribute to said conversation, hopefully guiding it to a positive outcome. But asking users to submit their ideas? For free no less?

Hundreds of companies use needles and threads to manufacture shirts… but people don’t purchase shirts per se. The logo is the face of the brand, which, like it or not, is what people purchase. So what exactly is the IDEA worth to a company like Gap? Obviously not much if they’re asking for it for nothing. It’s a sad message to send to those who make a living off their creativity.

See you right back here at 4 p.m. EST.

...For The Ride Home: M.I.A. released a video that's offensive, young people who watch bad movies drink alcohol and Hanson is touring

We begin week five with an offering of Brand New because they just so happen to be on the mind. They are one of the few bands who have survived that entire scene without having any casualties, and there is certainly something to be said about that. And, well, "Seventy Times Seven" is easily one of the angriest songs in the history of the world. We like anger. In any case, we are coming up on our one month anniversary tomorrow. Exciting! The exclamation point is used for effect. Maybe we'll organize some type of celebration tomorrow by giving away free sour patch kids to the 1,000th page view. As for now, let's start off the week correctly.

An official newspaper war began today, and the contestants are pretty much a big deal. (The Daily Beast)

Ben Roethlisberger insists he did nothing wrong. Still. (TMZ)

Wow. The guy who stars opposite Jennifer Lopez in that must-be-awful new movie says the sex scenes weren’t any fun. I know it must be awkward, but honestly? Jennifer Lopez? (Dimewars)

Headline of the day: Children who watch R-rated movies more likely to drink alcohol. (Fox News)

Hey! Hanson is touring with Rooney! “This Time Around” is one of the 10 best guilty pleasures in the world. (Alternative Press)

The Sports Emmys are tonight, and we bet you didn’t know. (USA Today)

A lot of buzz around this M.I.A. video. At least she’s not pregnant in it. (Spin)

Ugh. Newspaper circulation drops another 8.7 percent in six months. According to the read-out, though, the pace of the decline has decreased. Silver lining? (Yahoo)

I Like That Boom Boom Branding!

Late last week there was an article in The Wall Street Journal on the Black Eyed Peas that really got me thinking. The gist of the piece was about how the group has become "the most corporate brand in America," a pop juggernaut that somehow manages to appeal to grade school kids, corporate CEOs and my grandma ("as long as that hussie Fergie keeps her clothes on").

And while many musicians not named Gene Simmons would balk at the idea of being associated with marketing terms like branding, reach and demographic, will.i.am throws them around like it's... well, his job.

"I consider us a brand," he said in the WSJ. "A brand always has stylized decks, from colors to fonts. Here's our demographic. Here's the reach. Here's the potential. Here's how the consumer will benefit from the collaboration."

Wasn't it always the record label executives who were supposed to be the big bad guys throwing around words like that? I realize musicians have endorsed products for years, but this just felt a little different to me for some reason... Clearly there is no such thing as "selling out" in today's musical landscape, but at what point does the artist/group/band go too far?

I had a great discussion with a great friend a while back about musical integrity and the decay of music as an art - a form of expression. His stance was that music has pretty much never been an art, but instead, more like a competitive sport. Bands (or groups, singers, etc) compete with each other to see who can write the "best" songs in order to get the highest amount of airplay, the best venues and the most fans. So if one buys this argument, then music truly is a science, not an art.

But what about those musicians who write music because they feel uncomfortable or incomplete when they don't? Or the people who write music because they have to, regardless of whether one or one million people hear it? Or the people who write music for no other reason other than they like to write music? Those are the people who maintain music as an art form in my humble opinion. And if they happen to make a few dollars in the process, more power to 'em.



So what's the point of this? I'm not sure to be perfectly frank. I do know that I can listen to my favorite song a thousand times and not get tired of it... and that has to mean something, right? Maybe you can give me some insights (ahem, comments, ahem).

Don't forget to come back for The Ride at 4 p.m. or so. We'll be waiting for you.

- TS