fact that the logo didn’t click with that part of our brain explains why it didn’t attract our attention.’ (Psychworld. 2011.) I personally did not like the new GAP logo, I agree with the NeuroFocus study that we seek novelty and because GAP’s original logo was so iconic, the new logo made the company unrecognisable. I also feel that the logo, in my opinion, looked lazy, it looked as if it had been done quickly on a Microsoft Word WordArt. It still had the blue box that GAP is known for, but because it was at the end of the name, it looked as if it had been placed there last minute. I also feel that the typeface used, Helvetica, was too basic for such an iconic brand image, and overall felt the new logo made the whole brand look cheaper than it is. ‘How many times have we heard a high profile rebrand met with a public outcry? The ‘wispa effect’ has seen the public claim ownership of the GAP brand, raised awareness of its long live aesthetic and encourages columnists to tickle their keyboards. What other PR stunt or ad campaign could have triggers the same response? In my view, Gap’s recent about turn shouldn’t be written off as a failure. After all, as sales go up, the clients got happier.’ (Azurdia, D. 2010. P 11.) This could show another side of the argument, that even though the actual rebranded GAP logo was a failure, it brought GAP back into the public eye, a company that
although is not failing, is perhaps less popular than it was a few years ago. The public outcry towards the new logo meant GAP was back in the media, and as they say all publicity is good publicity. It made consumers look at GAP again; a high street store that they had perhaps overlooked recently and the sales after the logo recall had risen. ‘After an embarrassing logo mishap, Gap is coming back strong, mainly through aggressive global expansion, a very active presence in social media, stronger engagement with consumers, and celebrity endorsement. As of 2011, Gap reports stores in 29 countries, including recent arrivals in Asia and planned expansion into Africa. Gap has made its future plans readily available through Gap Inc.’s Global Runway report, projecting international and online growth into 2014. Even with such lofty goals, Gap has been consistent with its brand touch points–ad campaigns, stores, and its website are all clean and simple as Gap has always been.’ (Interbrand. 2011. P 39) Does this mean that companies that have received flagging sales recently should look into publicity stunts such as this to revive their image, instead of spending money on rebranding they could use a controversial stunt to gain media coverage, but would they still be able to keep their existing image and values? Or should brand look to refresh their image when the time is right and with lot of customer research to make sure they can avoid failures such as GAP?