Notes, thoughts.

Opinion/Review: Rebranding of the ‘why bother’ variety

I thought I’d fire off a quick opinion/review double header on the newly launched Gap rebrand during my lunch break. So here it is: Epic Fail. I just can’t see the logic here. Granted, this post isn’t up to my usual researched and meticulously crafted level (ha ha) but I just can’t see the point. Why do they want to look like American Apparel, a brand that had been stealing it’s thunder, but is now in it’s death throes? 

Was there not ONE person in the room willing to speak up and say “Isn’t it a little close to American Apparel, you know, that other clothing retail brand that is so much cooler than us?”. Indeed the similarities in these two brands are rather extensive, and the contrasts are only skin deep and reactionary — American Apparel was on the street corners because Gap was in the mall. AA shot risky, porno style advertising your mum hated because Gap’s ads were so white-bread and vanilla. Where Gap was produced OS in Chinese sweatshops (I’m assuming), AA was fervently ‘Sweat Shop Free, Made in downtown LA’. AA was the anti-Gap, and thus it was successful. But make no mistake — they were both after the same pot of gold — middle class kids’ parent funded credit cards.

So in a classic 1+1 surely equals 2, Gap (as opposed to the previous GAP) have decided to do away with the condensed serif (the design aficionados would call it a Didone), and hang out with the cool sans serif kids. Surely all we need to attract the hipsters is a sans serif, right? Here’s a better idea. AA’s financial troubles are well documented, so Gap, why not buy AA, and the above logo can become a reality. Nothing gets you real, authentic credibility faster than simply buying it!

That blue box? Well someone with a powerpoint and more charts than sense probably prattled on about things like ‘brand equity’ to force that monstrosity into the logo.