Much has been written about the recent redesign and retraction of Gap’s new visual identity. What hasn’t received much attention, relatively speaking, is the attempt by Gap to harness the energy and redirect it via crowdsourcing.

Only days after Bill Chandler, VP of corporate communications, described the new mark as “a more contemporary, modern expression” he was expressing doubt and corporate’s new thinking could be found on the brand’s Facebook page: “We love our version, but we’d like to see other ideas.”

Just as the haters reloaded for another round of venomous critique, the world’s second largest specialty retailer gave them another reason to attack. A flagship brand and household name, with the ability to bankroll a redesign of such monumental proportions, was coming to the design community with its hands out, asking for spec work. How low could they go?

Now, some proclaim it has all been a premeditated, strategically planned-and-plotted process to gather up media attention, create buzz within passionate communities, and essentially reinvigorate a brand. Others hail the quick comeback as a savvy move, tapping into the zeitgeist of social media and “leveraging the mass collaboration enabled by Web 2.0 technologies to achieve business goals,” as defined by Wikipedia (irony intended here).

You’d be hard pressed to find an abundance of opinion in the “fab” camp and can hardly make your way through the Web without stumbling on a bit about Gap’s gaffe. Either way, the conversation may evolve as the “public as professional stand-ins” exposure begins to spark conversation. I, for one, welcome the dialogue and think that as digitally inclined professionals, we need healthy discourse on how our tools are affecting change in the business process and in client expectations. What are your thoughts?

Are you ready for the next time your client considers your work a fumble and calls a ringer off the bench to finish the game? Are you, perhaps, the ringer? And do you consider that opportunity to engage mass opinion and insight (using that word broadly) fab or fail?

[ this post also appeared on TalentZoo Media, along with the following ]

the gap’s great marketing gaffe

The denim-clad world did a 180 last week, and somewhere a designer weeps for what could have been. A simple logo redesign turned ugly, and consumers had plenty to say (and tweet) about it. If you missed the death and rebirth of Gap’s iconic blue square, here’s a quick recap (pictures will not be shown out of respect for the still grieving; links, however, will be abundant).

In 1969, Donald G. and Doris F. Fisher open the first Gap store in San Francisco. They open their second store in San Jose in 1970 and establish headquarters in Burlingame, California. They have four employees.

The name of the clothing retailer is based on a popular phrase at the time, “the Generation Gap,” which describes the chasm, both in fashion and culture, between the day’s youth and their parents.

In 1972, The Gap Stores file an application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for a service mark. A second filing occurs two years later for a trademark, with first commercial use in 1974 (Gap has 25 stores at this point) and registration is granted in 1976.

At this point, the visual identity is a stylized wordmark owned by The Gap. Fitting of the time and brand, the logo reflects the casual, clean, and simple lifestyle of their target — young people craving the comfort of denim and T-shirts and, perhaps more importantly, insisting that their personal “uniform” not be that of their parents.

The 1980s saw growth via business units launched from within and acquisitions. The company acquired Banana Republic in 1983 and launched GapKids in 1986 and babyGap in 1989. During this decade, the much-beloved and championed blue box logo debuts.

The 1990s welcomed the launch of Old Navy and GapBody. As the multiplying sister brands begin to overpower (and perhaps cannibalize) the parent brand, the solid blue color field and thin serifed logotype remain the same. The established “mother ship” is the anchor for both in-store merchandising and point-of-sale, print, and online advertising and promotion.

The shift continues as the brand survives into a new century — younger consumers gravitate to Old Navy, professionals turn to Banana Republic — and looks to new product lines, celebrity spokesmodels, and fashion photographers. The logotype remains untouched, and by 2008, the company employs more than 150,000 people throughout more than 3,000 stores worldwide.

So how, in 2010, nearly 30 years in, did we end up here?

The new logo, designed by New York agency Laird & Partners and created with a bright outlook on the brand’s future, took up residence on the Gap’s website and found itself in the middle of a huge hatefest. Quickly, running commentaries on the change filled social media spaces, touching on the ill-advised direction and the so-simplistic-as-to-be-absurd creative (or lack thereof) direction.

A brand that had anchored an empire and represented one of the world’s largest specialty retailers — one that had remained strong and stable for decades — suddenly found itself in the middle of shouting match. It didn’t take long for the powers that be to recognize the mistake they’d made in underestimating the power, and popularity, of the old blue box and sedate serif typography.

“There may be a time to evolve our logo, but if and when that time comes, we’ll handle it in a different way,” proclaimed Marka Hansen, president of Gap Brand, North America in a statement issued this week.

What started as a refresh and a reinvigoration turned into mudslinging and crowdsourcing and ended up right back at square one. The jury’s still out on what offended the masses more — the clumsy snap-on redesign or the solicitation to the community to re-redesign gratis. Either way, the company stumbled and recovered, not so gracefully, and it is to be seen how that may affect the brand and its ability to lead a loyal, leaden, and vocal following.