• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

The New GAP Logo


Active Member
If you haven't seen it yet, then I apologize for bringing this to your attention on a rainy Wednesday morning, but here it is, complete with blue gradient square:

The general feedback via Twitosphere and bloggers has been negative to say the least, there's even been comparisons to Microsoft Word Art or Powerpoint!

What do you think of the new logo? Does anyone prefer the new logo?


Senior Member
I just don't get the logic, someone might, but it's not funky and fresh, so they can't argue that... it's not interesting or super functional, so can't argue that... it's just dire


Senior Member
Initial thoughts are - not liking it. Would like to see it it against their advertising etc to see if it works. I'm quite surprised they have rebranded, I thought their old logo was quite iconic.


Senior Member
I agree with everyone's comments so far, but...

Looking at the 2 logos next to each other I think the old gap logo does now look slightly dated. It is iconic but only because its been around for so long. For me the type lacks strength. Maybe the aim of the new logo is to create something clean, fresh, contemporary and get rid of the blue box (which must have been restrictive when applied in different ways).

Saying that, I dont think they have achieved whatever they set out to do, it looks too basic IMO.

Then again, you could argue that the role of a logo has changed in the past 10 years. It was once only seen on a shop front and printed media. Now with the internet, social networking, tv advertising, virals etc is it less about the logo and more about the brand? How often will the logo be seen on its own as displayed above? Does the new chunkier&simpler typeface help give it presence in a world over saturated by logos, bevels, gradients, drop shadows?

So taking that in to consideration, does the new logo lend itself more to a 21st Century company?
The Cliff Condos Pattaya
It looks acceptable on their site, but maybe because their site is nicely designed!

The blue square is maybe representative of their core, denim. But why it would be placed seemingly arbitrarily behind the 'p' beats me, doesn't hint at their values, product, market or history!

What's the font, some kind of Helvetica? Designed in '57... and their new product is the '69 jean.


Senior Member
The new blue box has a gradient though.
The old one was iconic & a solid logo, while not the best, or even the most functional, it shouldn't change to the new one :)


Active Member
I would have personally liked to have seen a new typeface kept within the iconic blue box, so it builds/evolves on the well known identity, for me dropping the blue box behind the type and adding that gradient just makes it look like a bad afterthought.

I see what you're saying with regards to the usage of logos nowadays Dave, and don't have an issue with the Helvetica, arguably it is mroe practical, perhaps overused, but more practical, but the new blue box on the other hand, I think this will be more of a hinderance.
I think it's a good point they may be aiming at a new target audience, and that the old logo did look really up-market.

It's just unfortunate the new one they've chosen is absolutely pantaloons.


Senior Member
Come to think of it I haven't shopped in Gap in years... but not 'cos of the logo probably 'cos of they have kind of been quiet and slipped off the fashion radar. Their advertsing used to be class, remember all the christmas adverts. They would have been better off just repositioning themselves, rather then rebranding. I want the old logo back!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lfzl-2iSfbM"]Gap Ad[/ame]

So the new Gap logo has been unleashed on an unsuspecting world and has lavished us with a very real sense of feeling decidedly underwhelmed. The design community has obviously reacted in it’s thoughtful and considered way – one designer tweeted ‘OMG. WTF? I’m puking blood’ on first view.

So I’m going to try not to deliver a vitriolic diatribe on the worthlessness of this new identity but it does warrant a few words on the subject…

At first glance you get a strong whiff of American Apparel. Maybe it’s the Helvetica, simply crafted and displayed with the kerning ‘just so’, but then you get smacked in the eye with the small, badly placed and oddly executed gradient square. The whole thing looks incomplete, almost thrown together. This effect is probably heightened when you compare the new to the original. Now I’m not saying it wasn’t time to reconsider the logo, but the original carries with it a heritage, a history and lineage that means – whether you like it or not – you understand it, you know what the brand stands for. The new identity falls flat because it doesn’t reflect the values of the brand it represents. It’s trying to play the ‘cool’ card, but here’s the thing – Gap is not cool. It is conservative, but good quality, stylish with a small ‘s’. Gap products deliver a look that doesn’t really date. Gap is fashion without being fashionable – and what’s wrong with that?

Looking at the new logo is like the first time I saw my Dad wearing ironed jeans with box fresh trainers, it makes me feel uncomfortable and slightly embarrassed.

I suspect that the agency responsible was steeling itself for this day, and they won’t be surprised by the opinions being thrown around, but today the design community has a point. This is a bad logo and Gap has made a considerable error of judgement. On balance, the designer who’s puking blood may have a point, I hope he’s alright.