
Dear Gap, I have your new logo. - cgomez
http://weblog.muledesign.com/2010/10/dear_gap_i_have_your_new_logo.php
======
ryanwaggoner
Posts like this seem like the designer equivalent of the music labels spending
years complaining about how sharing music is wrong and trying to put the
"evil" back in Pandora's box, while millions of people merrily continue to
download music off bittorrent anyway. The reality of the internet is that
people can easily solicit work on spec from thousands of designers, and they
will get good stuff in return. Will it be great? Rarely. But it'll be good
enough for most, and if it's not, they're out nothing. See 99designs.com.

This seems like classic game theory. While it's in the design industry's
collective best interest to never work on spec like this, it might be in an
individual designer's best interest to design Gap's logo for free. And even if
it's not, if most of them think it is, you've still lost. Believe me, I
understand that Gap's move here is a slap in the face, but many designers out
there will do it anyway, just for the chance to say they designed Gap's logo.

~~~
jimboyoungblood
To be fair to the music labels, they at least have copyright law on their
side. This is more like how professional journalists whine about bloggers.

~~~
lwhi
Crowdsourcing involves getting many people to work for you for nothing; after
which, you only pay one person.

I don't think it's surprising that many people dislike the idea.

~~~
Cushman
Alternately, crowdsourcing involves many people getting the chance to try
their hand at something that, normally, only one person would do.

I don't think it's surprising that that one person dislikes the idea.

~~~
lwhi
The argument that the designers (/entrants) benefit isn't anything other than
disingenuous posturing.

Crowdsourcing doesn't give many people an 'opportunity' to try something new -
it provides the client with cheap design.

There's a very clear motivation behind providing design in this way, and the
designer is always going to lose out.

~~~
Cushman
The "designer" gets a little bit of scratch and exposure they never would have
gotten otherwise. The "client" gets a design that meets their budget, and
which is likely to be much better than what a professional designer would do
for the same price. Who's losing out here?

~~~
limedaring
> and which is likely to be much better than what a professional designer
> would do for the same price

Why would you think a novice on the web with Photoshop will automatically do
better than a professional with experience and who is looking beyond making a
cool design?

Logos aren't just pieces of art — they also brand a company. Crowdsourcing
will never match a professional brand designer.

~~~
tpz
And why would you think that a novice on the web with Photoshop _couldn't_ do
better than a 'professional' with blah blah blah, especially when this new
logo is amateur hour at best and utter crap at worst.

I sincerely hope that the entire Internet is being trolled by The Gap on this
one, given that the alternative is entirely depressing.

Either that or this logo is legit, meant to last, will work on consumers, and
in turn will reduce designer's hourly rates around the world. :)

~~~
StavrosK
Is there any doubt that they were trolling with this new logo? It looked like
a placeholder from the first moment I saw it, and I know __nothing __about
design (see historious).

------
ryanwaggoner
_I researched your customers. Talked to a variety of them, in fact. Asked them
not only about The Gap, but about their own lives. Their needs. Anxieties.
Their thoughts on the future. I took all that into account.

I also interviewed employees in a few of your stores. (They’re quite
dedicated, you know.) I asked them how they felt about the company and about
their interactions with customers. Because customer service may actually be
the most important part of your brand. And the logo’s job is simply to help
evoke those pleasant experiences._

Does anyone else find this pretentious? I somehow doubt that most of the
world's biggest brands have logos that came about through this process, or at
least are measurably different than they would have been if a talented
designer came up with something that felt right and looked good.

[http://www.murdercapers.com/corporate/companyLogos/CompanyLo...](http://www.murdercapers.com/corporate/companyLogos/CompanyLogosNew.jpg)

I bet a lot of those are just variations on the original logo of the company
when it was started. Maybe I'm completely wrong though; just seems like if
you'd expect _anyone_ to think that designing a new logo should include
hundreds of hours and dozens or hundreds of customer and marketing surveys, it
would be a branding firm who wants to charge you for all that. I'm not sure
anyone else would be able to tell the difference between a logo that came from
that process and one that came from a few hours of a great designer throwing
out ideas.

~~~
prawn
It's not pretentious, it's just what happens with a big budget rebrand. I
don't know if I can explain my take on all this that well, but I'll try: You
can either do something at one level, playing off gut-feel/fairly safe
assumptions and get it 80% right, or spend 10 times as much, do research and
_maybe_ get it 95% right.

That said, in an argument, designers will talk about all those lovely
theoretical things they were trained to do. Then, most of them will just sit
down and muck around with fonts, shapes, etc until they have something that
fits the bill.

Same is often true with web design (my gig). You can use your experience, gut,
etc to create a $10k site, or you could spend $100k to get something not miles
dissimilar but involving actual usability testing (instead of gut feel
decisions), buckets of documentation, etc. You could spend $100k on a single
page microsite if you wanted to take everything to the extreme with endless
focus groups, eye-tracking tests, etc. Or you could just put the branding in
the top left, use buttons that look like buttons, remember what worked from
last time you did some A/B tests, make the text legible, etc.

It's a funny game. Most of the time I estimate/quote by rolling dice rather
than spending hours trying to guess the budget of a client or the level of
polish they want to pay for with a site.

~~~
proexploit
I think it's inaccurate to say most designer's work process is to "just sit
down and muck around with fonts, shapes, etc until they have something that
fits the bill". Of course design is a process but all those "lovely
theoretical things" tell you where to start. If you're quoting by rolling the
dice, you're not quoting effectively.

~~~
prawn
I don't want to truly trivialise it, but I imagine a lot of it is
brainstorming, thinking, and gut feel than direct conversations with
customers, market research, etc.

And I have to disagree on the dice. The best situation is a client giving me
their budget and me telling them the best way to spend it (often, not all of
it). So, when the budget is not disclosed, instead of spending hours trying to
guess their pricepoint, I just randomise the approach and then fill that
budgeted time in the best way possible.

------
marknutter
So let me get this straight: Gap first _hires_ someone to design a logo, and
it's universally panned by the design community. They then ask the community
"if our new logo is so crappy, why not see if you can do better?" Then, the
design community bitches at Gap for not hiring someone to design their logo?
Does this seem a bit odd to anybody else?

Also, it's hard to bitch when your whole career depends on something as
subjective as logo design. Because of this subjectivity it's possible a design
rookie out of high school could design something as cool or cooler than the
seasoned professionals, and do it for a _fraction_ of the price (or free).
Conversely, that same subjectivity allows people to get away with charging
outrageous fees for design work (i.e.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXT#cite_ref-rand_16-0>)

It seems to me like Gap is damned no matter what they do.

~~~
iamdave
I find it almost 100% more interesting that some of the people the design
"community" exalts on a frequent basis, and even then some of the community
itself didn't present any serious submissions when the call came. They all
made fun of the idea that GAP was crowdsourcing a new logo.

That's slacktivism on a level Facebook breast cancer awareness can't even
touch.

Participate or stfu is my opinion, but I'm no designer.

~~~
kyoji
Did you even bother reading the article? As a designer I find most of the
options presented to be humorous, or sub-standard at best. Nearly all of them
miss the mark far worse than Gap's own new logo does. I wouldn't expect any
serious submissions simply because why would anyone work for free for a multi-
billion dollar corporation?

------
mikeryan
A bit of background on this. Gap just updated their logo, its getting pretty
heavily slammed by the design community (I too think its god awful)

More here: [http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2010/october/new-
gap...](http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2010/october/new-gap-logo)

BTW the author's twitter feed, @Mike_FTW is one of the funnier feeds to
follow.

~~~
matrix
Anyone know what the business case for this change was? What was wrong with
the old logo? I'm having a hard time understanding what the thinking was here.

~~~
matrix
Answering my own question, I found this in the Advertsing Age:

<http://adage.com/article?article_id=146353>

I don't think this is going to end well for Gap.

------
Mc_Big_G
_I’ve redesigned your logo. It’s behind the post-it above. It’s unbelievably
good. Fantastic, even. I’m convinced it’s what you need._

aaaaaaand it turns out to be crap. Your policy of 3 (or whatever) "redesigns"
turns out to give me 3 more crap designs and then, according to the contract,
I have to pay you anyway. I spent $5,000 like that. Never again.

~~~
mambodog
So designers should do the initial work for free? So their customer can say
"nah, I don't like any of them" and then suddenly a design looking
_remarkably_ similar appears on their website/products, courtesy of a much
cheaper 'designer' working off the 'rejected' design comps?

~~~
mfukar
No, designers should not be expecting to form guilds or a cast and be treated
like one. They're not a special kind of workers.

That is, assuming they do want to be treated like workers and not as artists.
You hire workers, you don't hire artists, right? It'd be pretty derogatory for
the real artist..

------
nsfmc
So, what i think is missing is this link that explains exactly what this dude
is writing about:

    
    
      Thanks for everyone’s input on the new logo! We’ve had 
      the same logo for 20+ years, and this is just one of the
      things we’re changing. 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. [1]
    

So, in this context, i think the rant makes a bit more sense. Equally funny is
iso50's description of this as "a tropicana,"[2] which is a zing i never
thought i'd hear.

But, i want to throw out there that this impulse to violently reject or
passionately protect logos has an analog in language. "All living languages
are always changing"[3] and same goes for logos and brand identities. Much
like language or fashion, logos evolve and whatever.

And for everyone that's all "oh that's shite, i could do better," I invite you
to really try your hand at this sort of thing with actual real life
constraints and (gasp!) real life clients. There's all sorts of design work
you can do without a client, but it takes a special type to actually, you
know, design _for_ somebody else and more hopefully, design _with_ someone
else.

[1]: <http://www.facebook.com/gap/posts/159977040694165> [2]:
<http://blog.iso50.com/2010/10/06/gap-redesign-contest/> [3]:
<http://www.lsadc.org/info/ling-fields-change.cfm>

_edit_ formatting goofs always get me

~~~
ack
I think what's really missing is the answer to: Who is this "Gap" of which you
speak?

~~~
nsfmc
yeah, i mean _it's The Gap._ really, is this a brand we're actually getting
worked up about?

------
edw519
Before I realized what this post really was, I tried to peel off the post-it
note with my mouse. Now _that's_ an entry that would have gotten some
attention.

~~~
joezydeco
I thought it _was_ the post-it note, and this was all satire. Guess I better
read this again.

~~~
hugh3
I did too. And then I got to thinking that a post-it note with "Gap" written
on it might make a pretty good logo.

------
kmort
Call me cynical but a very similar play happened with Kraft and their launch
of a new Vegemite+cheese spread.

They named it "iSnack 2.0", were met with strong derision, opened up a naming
contest, and finally settled with the consumer-selected "Cheesybite". This
whole rigmarole earned them quite a bit of publicity. People were even buying-
up the iSnack-labeled jars before the renaming thinking they'd become
collector's items.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegemite#Vegemite_Cheesybite:_n...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegemite#Vegemite_Cheesybite:_new_recipe)

"iSnack 2.0" and the new Gap logo are too terrible to happen innocently.

------
acangiano
99designs entries: [http://99designs.com/logo-design/contests/design-better-
gap-...](http://99designs.com/logo-design/contests/design-better-gap-logo-
community-project-54693)

~~~
alanh
Perhaps 2% of the logos there could be taken at all seriously. The one which
makes the A in GAP look like a pair of jeans is at least clever. But wow is
there a lot of garbage there. Thanks for sharing the link!

~~~
jbenz
There have been a ton of other designs submitted to ISO50. Some aren't too
bad: <http://blog.iso50.com/2010/10/06/gap-redesign-contest/>

~~~
hugh3
There are some good ones there. Personally I like number 42.

It seems to me that a place called "Gap" should have a gap somewhere in its
logo.

~~~
alanh
I'd actually disagree. It's just a brand - your mind should associate the name
and logo with connotations and feelings regarding their clothes and their
shopping experience (and probably sex, it's a youthful clothing store). You
shouldn't be thinking about what the word "gap" literally means - it's
orthogonal to the meaning of the brand.

------
fretlessjazz
I'm not a design genius-- but when I saw Gap's new logo I think I knew what
they were going for, and imho I doubt it was created haphazardly. The new logo
is exemplary of the transition of "best practice" design principles from print
to electronic media.

They unabashedly violated two rules of logo and print media design, and it's
so blatant that I can't believe it was an accident. Their logo features a
gradient (print-media epic fail), and two low-contrast overlapping colors, the
P and the background square (also a print-media epic fail).

I hope that the executives do not knee-jerk a reaction and demand a logo
redesign, but instead play out the campaign and see how it pans out. I'm not
convinced it was a mistake.

Perhaps the real redesign wasn't the logo, but their website and online
presence?

------
cgomez
I should have provided some context since this isn't exactly the usual HN
subject matter.

Earlier this week, Gap Clothing changed their logo from the old iconic blue
box logo to the new one which is essentially another Helvetica wordmark and a
box placed in the corner. Mike's post (the main link), which is employing
quite a bit of insincerity, assumes you knew about this before hand.

Brand New, a great brand identity blog, has more and a lively discussion about
it -
[http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/dont_min...](http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/dont_mind_the_gap_or_the_square.php)

------
cookiecaper
Whole post is silly and pretentious. If the design really _is_ so great that
Gap thinks it's worth using, then legally they'll have to pay him to transfer
the copyright before they can do anything with it.

So cut out the stupid ego-drenched drama and just show the logo. He'll get a
lot farther that way than demanding compensation up front anyway. Even if Gap
rejects the logo, it will stand as a nice portfolio/concept piece if it is
really good as guy claims.

~~~
eru
He doesn't have a logo.

------
run4yourlives
Simple response:

The value of a product is set by the consumer, not by the producer. (This is
true for over-inflated values as well, so don't bitch.)

If the value set is too low for the producer, he either has an inflated sense
of worth, or isn't doing a good enough job of educating the consumer, or both.

~~~
mfukar
And here I was thinking that it was both demand and supply. Damn you, Adam
Smith!

~~~
run4yourlives
250 years ago, the notion of infinite supply didn't exist.

In a vast majority of cases, infinite supply is exactly the world that many
producers live in these days, especially on the internet.

------
audionerd
Many clever alternate designs (and parodies) have been posted on the ISO150
blog:

    
    
      http://blog.iso50.com/2010/10/06/gap-redesign-contest/

~~~
amackera
Clickable: <http://blog.iso50.com/2010/10/06/gap-redesign-contest/>

------
nym
I hope I'm not the only one who added style="visibility:hidden;" to the post-
it-note image hoping to be pleasantly surprised.

------
andrewljohnson
Posts like this misunderstand how decisions about corporate logos are made.
You need to back-stab the ad agency and cozy up to the marketing VP to change
the logo.

Posting like this on the web just invites the marketing VP and the account rep
to go out to dinner and laugh at your feeble attempts, over a couple of stiff
drinks.

It really is exactly like Mad Men.

------
evancaine
A lot of the comments in this thread seem to imply that brand specialists will
always deliver a quality logo. I can think of one recent example where that
wasn't the case: the London 2010 Olympics logo. It cost £400,000 and was
negatively received by the public and many industry professionals:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Summer_Olympics#Logo>

------
pseudonym
This was the first thought I had when I saw their "if you can do better" press
release.

Kind of depressing from such a large brand, to be honest. As if it wasn't bad
enough getting this kind of "Well it's just a design, it takes like five
minutes, I can sketch one up right now! So here, you can do it, but we're
giving you peanuts" mentality from smaller clients.

------
Lbma
Brilliant

------
TheAmazingIdiot
And now I have a vision of the word "Gap" with fingers pulling at the G and
the p.

Yes. Blame goatse on me. But once you see it, it never goes away.

------
keltecp11
Well played. How about a sneak peak?

~~~
someone_here
I don't think you quite understand the sarcasm in the article (or perhaps I
misread it...?)

~~~
notyourwork
I did not understand either, I feel I am missing some context to this post
that the writer should have included.

~~~
flatline
I think it was pretty clear that he was being sarcastic, but only up to a
point. I am still left wondering if he actually has a logo to show or if he is
offering his services in a professional capacity, or not.

~~~
jacobolus
Neither. It’s just rhetorical.

------
absconditus
The new logo is horrendous.

