Identity is everywhere. Logos bombard us from every direction throughout our daily routine. The general public could care less about what a logo looks like, how cool it is, or how appropriate it is to them; the customer. Designers on the other hand, are constantly critiquing every brand they see. Making judgements on concept, typography, color palette, the list goes on. These are natural instincts to most creatives. But every now and then, a logo redesign to a major brand pops up that attracts the attention of both the design community and the general public. This brings me to the main point of this blog post: The new Gap logo. Debuted on monday, the new logo features Helvetica bold with a blue gradient square behind the type. My first response was: this has got to be a joke. But, alas, i would be wrong. Since then, there have been numerous articles detailing the awfulness of the redesign, prompting several blogs to start design contests as well as others allowing you to “crap” your logo. There have also been several news sources saying that this could be a hugely successful PR stunt. I surely hope so because this new brand is not helping their cause. I would put this debacle up there with the Tropicana and Pepsi redesigns along with the 2012 London olympics logo. I can’t say that the original Gap logo was an example of logo perfection, but the equity it had built over time put it in the top tier of iconic, recognizable brands. Not that I am against a company wanting to redefine itself, but there are right ways and then there is this. Nothing about the new look seems logical or well thought out. I would really like to hear what the rationale behind the redesign was. Because at this point, it begs for an explanation.