Out of the Box

Why Tweaking a Logo Could Backfire

By Menachem Lubinsky on October 18 2010

It is considered good marketing practice to tweak a logo so that it is more up-to-date in terms of its overall look. Tweak, of course, does not mean a complete redesign and overhaul, so much so that it is not recognizable. It means tinkering with the font and perhaps with the color and shape to project a more contemporary look. Major beverage companies like Coke and Pepsi do it periodically, always careful not to loose its basic look which really is its identity that spells customer awareness and brand loyalty.

Marketers were stunned last week when the Gap, a leading fashion brand withdrew its decision to update its logo four days after announcing that it was planning the change. Although it was perhaps more than just a tweak, the reaction from consumers was instantaneous and pointed enough that the company did an about face.

According to marketing publications the popular clothing company switched out its traditional blue box with tall, white letters for a logo sporting a white box with black letters and a small, blue square positioned in the top, right-hand corner.

What the Gap and many other major brands often attempt to do is to reinvent themselves. They desire to make themselves more current, particularly with younger customers that often tend to support brands that appear to be more in sync with their generation. Some major brands desire to be proactive, fearing that a competitor, even one that may not yet be on the horizon, will make them look stale, outdated, and less relevant.

While Gap may have been following the book in seeking an overall change in its corporate image, it apparently was not fully aware about the strength of its logo. True that the company felt it needed to make the change to recapture its former positioning of being a leader, it may not have had the benefit of advanced market research to know exactly how its target audience feels about the proposed change. In 1984, the Coca Cola Company introduced New Coke and quickly learned that marketing based on a whim was bad marketing. Other companies too learned the hard way that producing a product that the company “thinks” the customer wants is no replacement for what the customer “really” wants.

I have always admired the way Amtrak reinvented itself in an era of increased air travel. It redesigned its logo, its image and its message. Amtrak virtually became more of a transportation company than just railways. Its Acela Express campaign was an attempt to reposition train travel as quick, efficient, and comfortable at a time when air travel became much more of a hassle. The net result for Amtrak was an unprecedented surge in rail travel.

The Amtrak example is perhaps a good test case. Their attempt to reinvent themselves was necessitated by a competitive reason, air travel. There was lost market share to consider and above all the need to position air travel as a good alternative to traveling by air.
The Gap may have been motivated by its own competitive headaches. Sales at the chain’s 3000 stores have been in decline, losing market share to several competitors. It will likely move to strengthen its brand by remaking its ads and even redesigning its stores as it fights for market share of younger consumers.
Many companies never get to the stage of reinventing themselves or do not recognize the need for change until it is too late. They coast with an image that may be outdated but never have the luxury of actually stopping the clock to examine their own positioning. They may be late like the American auto industry which was virtually knocked off its own turf by foreign automakers. Good business practice means constantly evaluating the position of the business in terms of who the customer is and very importantly who the competitor is attracting.
Watching younger consumers place their loyalty with competitors is probably what set off the alarm bells at Gap. No one knows for sure whether a new aggressive marketing program sans the new logo will reverse the trend, but one thing is for certain: the status quo was certainly not the answer. It goes without saying, as I have so often written, that there is no replacement for knowing your customer well.
Some businesses do receive early warning signals only to ignore them. They may experience a down season in a particular business but typically ascribe the reason to a variable that may have no bearing on the truth. I have seen many entrepreneurs blame the economy for a failing business when in truth it really was something else. That is why it is important to do the forensics on a business periodically so that changes are not made too late.

About a year ago, I counseled a not-for-profit organization to update a logo that was first designed in the 1960’s. The organization was trying to make inroads with younger donors and had received feedback that their logo looked old and tired. A year after redesigning its logo, they were much more successful with younger donors. The executive director admitted that he should have embarked on a program to reinvent the organization “a long time ago.”

Out of the Box is a collection of strategic marketing articles that Lubicom has published on various topics, trends and ideas in the marketing world. The articles have been published in the Hamodia weekly newspaper circulated on three continents to a readership of well over 100,000.

The name, "Out of the Box" is a term used frequently in business nowadays to describe creative thinking that is not the norm. It is meant to help a business pull away from the pack or separate oneself from the competition. It is to some extent fraught with risk, simply because it is not the run of the mill thinking, but it is at the same time the key to reaching the next opportunity.