Logo Mojo

A few brands have recently been re-thinking their logos, for better or for worse.

You might recall Gap's foray into the un-boxed world of Helvetica a few months back or perhaps you have seen that Starbucks has chosen to liberate their iconic mermaid from her wordy confines.

These changes have been met with lukewarm reaction (if not strong dislike) from consumers. What is it about a changed logo that can create such a stir, set design blogs afire and make ordinary folks like you and me feel as though we should have been asked about this decision before it was made? Maybe the new representations were simply displeasing to the eye. Or, design aside, perhaps consumers truly trust in these brands and a corporate decision to change the look of that trust is difficult to tolerate. As we continue our work with brands and their consumer-facing components, consideration of consumer permission is crucial. Gap quickly realized their mistake when the internet erupted with criticism and, in an unprecedented move, their president was forced to publish their reasoning for changing their look. Barely a week after its unveiling, the new look of Gap was, embarrassingly, abandoned.

What can we learn from this? That the re-branding process should be done conscientiously in a world of judgemental consumers? Yes. But ultimately the product will need bring buyers back despite its packaging. Gap was in a bit of an identity crisis before its actual identity was in crisis- their product mix simply had not been speaking effectively to customers. Re-branding can be a wonderful advancement for a company, but a good logo only enhances what needs to be a great product. In this video from CNN one man probably speaks for many consumers when he claims he doesn't really care much about the new Starbucks logo, he will buy the coffee anyway.