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.

It’s the ad with the funny-looking guy wearing that loud jacket and that jingle that sticks in your head for days. Maybe it’s the spot with the animated character who looks like dancing zombie road kill, or perhaps it’s the one with the actor-turned-singer-turned-security-guard. They are the ads we can’t stand but we can’t stand to turn off, and they’re being honored by Consumerist.com’s first annual Worst Ad in America Awards.

Last week, it was announced that a roster of 30 ads (airing this year) would be competing within six categories, among them major brands like Honda, McDonald’s, and State Farm and some lesser-known but equally as liable brands such as 1-800 Dentist and 5-Hour Energy. All of the contestants were chosen based on readers’ submissions.

“The masses have spoken and they are sick and tired of viewing ads that only stimulate irritation, rather than substance,” said Meghann Marco, executive editor of Consumerist.com.

The nation’s leading not-for-profit consumer advocacy organization and subsidiary of Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, and ConsumerReports.org recently announced the winners of the “Fast Forward” Award; here they are in each of the six categories. Take a look — is that spot you love to hate a 2010 winner? Would you admit it if it was?!

Absolute Worst Ad in America:
Staples — Wow! That’s a Low Price!



Most Grating Performance by a Human:
McDonald’s — The “Don’t-even-talk-to-me-until-I’ve-had-my-coffee” jerkface



Most Annoying Animated Spokesthing:
The General Insurance — The General



Duo or Group Who Needs to be Broken Up:
J.G. Wentworth — The Opera-Singing Bus Riders



Celebrity Who Must Have Lost the Most Money in the Housing Crash:
ExtenZe — Jimmy Johnson



Creepiest Commercial:
Liberator Medical — No More Used Catheters

Final results can be found here.

This post also appears at TalentZoo’s blog, Beneath the Brand, as “The Worst Ad in America.”

The Huffington Post recently posted a piece on The Dollar ReDe$ign Project. This online contest to redesign the American dollar bill is described by organizer Richard Smith as a way to “rebrand the US Dollar, rebuild financial confidence and revive our failing economy.” No small task and not particularly convincing if the posted comments are any indication. But seeing the amount of creative energy expended, the solutions shared and the rationale underpinning these submissions, it’s clear that many of us believe in the power of a good redesign.

Billed as “the ‘only’ realistic way for a swift economic recovery,” I wondered if Smith might need to step away from the computer for a few hours. Described as “the ‘only’ pragmatic way to add some realistic stimulation into our lives,” I began to see the beauty in this open design project. And the genius behind striking up such an initiative.

Crowdsourcing American currency as the ultimate feel-good and minting a new calling card for Mr. Smith. That’s no chump change.

While the competition is closed, voting on the winner continues until September 30, 2010. Submissions are still being received as of this writing — so if you’re inclined to show the world what’s inside your wallet (or your sketchbook, cocktail napkin or hard drive) head over and throw your bills into the pile. Of course, you can also just take a look and see what inspiration you might find.

Fix the economy, unlikely. Add a little something different to your portfolio, sure thing. Boost the profile of a fellow creative and savvy marketer, absolutely.

COLOURlovers, an online community of folks who love all things color and creative, has put together a comprehensive color study of the top 100 websites. Not satisfied to simply rank these sites in numerical order, the team there created — and kindly shared — an infographic that tells an interesting story.

The bottom line: If you’re aiming for the top, you’d best be blue.

Take a look for yourself. It’s a great piece of info at a glance.

For those thinking that the Web’s big brands have broken out of the tight bounds of corporate identity, you may be surprised to find that just as traditional brands gravitate to the indigo end of the spectrum, so too do their Web-based brethren. What is striking is the crowd of social media sites — Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and MySpace — clustered in blue.

David Zax, blogging for Fast Company, suggests that the “phenomenon called ‘economies of agglomeration’” could be at work here, and in creating a “’blue district,’ (the color blue) becomes the only respectable place for a social media company to set up shop; a brilliant but fuchsia-branded networking site may flounder. He also cites a Wired study, conducted in 2003, that noted the import of location and proximity in the color spectrum and similar groupings as the ones found and illustrated by COLOURlovers.

As the boundaries blur between a brand’s owned (and controlled) website and its social media space (who needs a microsite anymore, really), it will be interesting to see how identity and brand are maintained. If this social-equals-blue equation bears out, what’s to become of the established brand that’s orange inside and out? What of the new brand just starting out, looking to stake out new territory and shake up its category?

It would appear — with this infographic and the reality it reveals — that online brands, and those spending more and more time there, will follow a tried-and-true, paint-by-numbers approach to color.

The Blue Man Group got us excited about computer chips. Ellen sells us water with a little something extra. Now, the fine folks at the Corn Refiners Association would like us to reconsider what goes inside all the sweet stuff that we consume.

In what Joe Weisenthal of Business Insider calls a “genius branding move,” the trade group is determined to rename High-Fructose Corn Syrup. They propose that we begin to use the moniker “Corn Sugar” and usher in a new era for their bread and butter, so to speak.

Parents no longer will scrutinize nutrition labels for the demon syrup. Gym-toned hard bodies can rest assured that their workouts won’t crash under the weight of the health-threatening ingredient. Weisenthal and the Corn Refiners Association would have you believe that all will be forgotten and the renaming will be a reset on all things sweet and gooey.

Not so fast.

Is it really that simple? Is a name change, albeit one with some powerful consumer beliefs baked in (ask a friend which is healthier: syrup or sugar), really going to turn a tide of consumer awareness and disapproval? In the age of mandatory labeling and hyper-vigilant prescreening, will consumers really buy the switch?

Is this truly a rebranding or just a case of crisis management wrapped in an all-natural, feel-good wrapper?

Monopoly City Streets, promoted as “you versus the world in the biggest live game of Monopoly in history,” is the love-child of Hasbro and Google. A gargantuan MMORPG (massively multiplayer online role-playing game), City Streets takes play out of the virtual world, into the streets (quite literally) and back into the virtual world. Players buy streets and engage in “property empire building on an unimaginable scale.”

Off to a less-than-stellar start, the game failed — quite publicly — September 9 when 1.7 million people tried to register simultaneously. As Hasbro prepares to punch the “reset” button on the game, most insiders expect that an even greater audience will push the limits of the registration tool. The re-launch is expected to be this week; the blog is currently working overtime.

I’m not especially keen on playing, keeping up with Bay Area real estate is enough “game playing” for me. But I will be watching the lifecycle of this game/campaign. I’ve been waiting for a brand to pick up the Google Maps API and use it to enhance both the brand and the consumer’s experience of the brand. Pete Cashmore over at Mashable shared this insight into the creation of the game: “What the coverage doesn’t mention is the level of involvement Google had here: while in theory this could have been built on the Google Maps API with little input from the search engine maker itself, all reports seem to indicate that Google had a direct role in bringing the game to fruition.”

Let the game begin. Again.

The Greater London Authority (GLA) has issued an RFP for the rebranding of London. You can read the “call for entries” here and, in fact, request formal paperwork via the same pithy web page.

One firm — Moving Brands — of London has taken a novel approach to the challenge. They have opened up what has typically been a “top secret” process. They have asked the public to participate, and not simply as members of focus groups. They’ve put it all online and enabled commenting throughout. The site, built on WordPress with Twitter feed and YouTube embeds details progress on the project including the “plus” of working with Scott Thomas, Design Director of the Obama Presidential campaign.

Great insight into what branding — and rebranding — can be.

Having just re-wrapped my own online porfolio, I gave it one more go to make certain I’d left no template unturned. Today I discovered a few resources that would have come in handy last month (and the month preceding, if I’m truly honest). Thought I’d share.

Enjoy!

Creating A Successful Online Portfolio
The “less is more” message here cannot be stressed enough. I make it a point to stress this to the designers I work with and advise. Taking that medicine myself — not always easy.

48 Trendy and Fresh Web Interfaces from Deviantart
If it’s coming from deviantArt, you know it’s fresh. Always nice to have a choice sampling in one place.

deviantArt site
A great source for inspiration and amazing example of creating online community with purpose and passion.