I edited the text by moving things around and removing the jokes and the crud.

17 Rebranding Failures and How Much They Cost | Canny

The Gap rebrand was estimated to have cost them $100 million. Gap performed possibly one of the fastest branding turnarounds of all time when they reverted to their original design, just six days after putting their new logo out into the public.

During the busy Christmas period of 2010, Gap launched a new logo design and rebranded their company to suit. They did so with no warning. The original Gap logo, a design that had served the brand for more than 20 years, disappeared from without warning and was replaced with the new logo – the word Gap in a bold font and a square, fading diagonally from light blue to dark blue. The change was no internet hiccup, it was permanent – or so it seemed.

A small buzz began to reverberate around the design community, quiet [complaining] about the new Gap logo. Soon, the internet was alive with activity and it was clear that people didn't like the new design. Gap responded positively, revealing that their new logo design was in fact the first stage of a crowd sourcing process that allowed them to reinvent the company.

Over a decade later, Gap's failed rebrand is still cited as one of the best examples of how not to rebrand.

  • LaGG_3 [he/him, comrade/them]
    ·
    2 years ago

    Gap responded positively, revealing that their new logo design was in fact the first stage of a crowd sourcing process that allowed them to reinvent the company.

    I'm not owned. I meant to do that. It was just a test, and this is exactly the response I expected. :rage-cry:

  • came_apart_at_Kmart [he/him, comrade/them]
    ·
    2 years ago

    there is only ever one good reason to rebrand: your company just killed a bunch of people and the average person now has a deeply negative association when looking at or hearing about your brand. like Blackwater -> Academi

    i have worked for organizations that have rebranded all willy nilly, like someone replacing a perfectly good countertop with pink marble because they think updating things is always good. and even when the new logo looks fine, people will be mad because you probably just paid some firm a shitload of money to design something a kid could do, and now the employees have to watch all the old shit get tossed for new shit and will always think of the process as wasteful.

  • DivineChaos100 [none/use name]
    ·
    2 years ago

    can't help but remember when a company i worked at paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to an italian designer firm to redesign our logo because of a copyright claim threat and literally all they did was replacing a circle with a square.

  • Shoegazer [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    Capitalism is the most efficient and rational system in the world that it takes $100 million dollars to change a logo and font

    Stupid commie kids want “free lunch” and “free healthcare” lmao.

    • MoneyIsTheDeepState [comrade/them,he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      :grillman: There's no free lunch...

      Except for the two lunches a week that come FREE with any new Amazon Rations subscription! Up to 3 free meals total per offer, limit one offer per household.

      Amazon Rations: It's finally trickling down. Lap it up from the dirt, or die for your pride.™

    • InevitableSwing [none/use name]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Or a tiny design firm. Or a company that makes seats for public transport. Or anything but an already well-known nationwide retail clothing firm.

    • Saint [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Specifically a mid-90s software company

      • HumanBehaviorByBjork [any, undecided]
        ·
        2 years ago

        I mean Helvetica and a small blue square is decidedly less 90s than (hold on lemme google) Spire and a big blue square. I think their mistake was trying to distance from the era that coincided with the height of their brand influence.