Retracting Gap: What's In A Logo?

"Ok. We’ve heard loud and clear that you don’t like the new logo." — GAP Facebook

But it's hard to turn off online opinions. And GAP can expect to hear some more after its two-day escapade to introduce a logo that felt like it was served up straight out of an old clip art book.

Helvetica (because that is what everybody uses). And a tiny box behind the GAP (because someone wanted GAP to be, you know, outside the box).

“We’ve learned a lot in this process. And we are clear that we did not go about this in the right way," said Marka Hansen, president of Gap Brand North America. "We recognize that we missed the opportunity to engage with the online community. This wasn’t the right project at the right time for crowd sourcing."

But did they really? Hansen's statement alludes to the idea that they might try again. Just not today. And after the recent GAP debacle, probably not in the foreseeable future. Almost certainly not why Hansen holds the same position.

What Is It About Logos Anyway?

When a company has a readily identifiable brand, like GAP, the logo transcends art. It becomes the symbol of the brand relationship.

When that happens (and you want it to happen), you cannot change the logo any more successfully than you can surprise your spouse with a new wedding ring as the symbol of your relationship. This is especially true true if you trade it down, swapping out the gold band for a twizzler stick or tie wrap.

"Um honey, what's that wrapped around your finger?"

"Oh this? It's a garbage bag tie wrap."

"A what? ... Why?"

"I decided to evolve the symbol of our relationship to be more in line with our everyday down-to-earth domestic bliss."

See? If you think such a stunt would be well received, go ahead and try it.

Of course, that is not to say refreshing a symbol is a bad idea. There are opportunities to evolve it, from time to time, with the mutual consent of both parties. Or, in the case of a company logo, many stakeholders. In some cases, it might not be all that different from deciding when to change a tagline.

When To Change A Logo.

At the end of the relationship. Mergers, acquisitions, and buyouts are all suitable times to change the logo because they represent a change in the relationship. However, marketers must always remember that a new symbol is indicative of change. New relationships have to be proven.

At the end of an era. Some logos, much like architecture, pay too much attention to trends and not the timelessness of their own design. In the 1980s, for example, many companies infused pastels into their designs. The evolution of Nike might be an appropriate example, especially because the changes were mostly subtle.

With a shift in direction. While the Syfy name change is still a mess, the timing was somewhat right. The network wanted to change direction. Whether it really did or not is debatable. (There were some other legal reasons involved too).

Because it sucks. Some companies have logos that suck. There are thousands and thousands. What else can be said about them? Marketers need to be careful though. Mercedes is sometimes called a bad logo design. Maybe so, but the iconic symbol has transcended what doesn't work.

New Products. New companies, new products, and new services can sometimes spark the imagination. Apple used this approach when it dropped the color bars. While the change wasn't as dramatic as the launch of Infiniti by Nissan, it's still a useful illustration.

Never. When a logo works, it works. And it doesn't have to be great to work. That is the lesson GAP ought to have learned. While the company might think the mark has become tied to the past, its customers are happy enough with it. And maybe that is the most important lesson of all. When it comes to logos, once established, it's no longer about you.

Related Stories By Others.

• What Did It Take To Get The Gap To Reverse Its Logo Redesign?

• Dear Gap, I Have Your New Logo.

• Calm Down, The New Gap Logo is a PR Stunt.

Changing Communication: Front Line Workers Over Leaders

According to a study by CNBC, the communication industry (advertising, public relations, and marketing) may see some more major transitions in the near future. This time around, the changes aren't expected to be external like the advent of social media. It will be internal, driven by changes in workforce positions, which will eventually cause cross-industry changes.

In the next decade, as media continues to consolidate, public relations (those who really worked in media relations) will face increased position competition by journalists. And, given the journalists will have a leg up on demonstrating "inside knowledge," many public relations pros will be absorbed into advertising (if they are creative), marketing (if they are not), or social media (for less money). As each position's exodus occurs, others within the field will likely be forced out or regulated to increasingly task-oriented jobs.

Communication-Related Positions Expected To Decline.

1. Reporters and Correspondents. According to the report, reporters and correspondents at media outlets will decline as much as eight percent in the next decade. This could increase competition in the fields of advertising and public relations as reporters and columnists on the top of the chain compete for better paying public relations jobs while new entrants are likely to consider advertising and public relations a backup.

2. Computer Programmers. While the software segment is expected to increase by as much as 32 percent in the decade, computer programmers (the people who write the instructions for computers to run software) will drop three percent. Either computer programmers will become increasingly independent or find new ways to adapt their work. We think it may impact the communication field as more marketers add tech savvy programmers to their creative teams.

3. Advertising, Marketing, And Public Relations Managers. While the industry is expected to grow 13 percent, communication management is expected to drop by two percent. This could impact the industry two-fold. More people but fewer managers will reduce the entry level positions to a subprofessional level and decrease opportunities for advancement. Beyond that, the industry has been trending toward tactical solutions, requiring more task work and people to fill chairs. And no, this isn't a good thing.

4. Editors. If you're tried of seeing typos in everything from media articles, company Websites, and blogs — get used to it. Editing positions will remain flat, with more of them being contracted as opposed to brought in house. Part of the decline is attributed to problems within the publishing industry, but the bigger picture is that companies want editors who are more than editors. They have to have some tech skills too. Interestingly enough, while there is less demand for the position, there is greater demand for the skill set.

While some of these changes seem insignificant, they represent sweeping changes in the industry. As media outlets continue to trim staff, public relations professionals (there is almost a reporter: public relations ratio of 1:2 already) will be expected to develop more direct-to-public campaigns. Unfortunately, they won't oversee the campaigns as — across the board — management is being diminished, leaving more communication professionals with less room for advancement in a field that was already competitive.

The net result is more tactical and less strategic work. And while this will appeal to number crunchers who believe everything is a formula based on the total number of people vs. the dollars spent, the net result will be weaker brands and a profession that increasingly feels less professional. For all the good social media has done, it is also stripping away some of the significance of the industry as entry-level communicators are much more likely to find their positions much more similar to online customer service than content creation and management.

Changing Paradigms: Fresh Content Project

Last week, I wrote about how important it is to remain teachable. And I didn't realize it at the time, but it fits in nicely enough with the five posts chosen as fresh content picks.

When you look at all of them, perhaps with Ike Pigott striking at a theme, they really speak to the idea that people are having a hard time letting go of what they think they know. The reality is that the world is constantly changing and it's changing at a faster pace. Nothing is going to be the same. So, it really becomes a balance of embracing change without being so foolhardy by thinking that every shiny solution will be the wave you want to ride.

Best Fresh Content In Review, Week of September 20

• 8 Blogger Outreach No-nos To Avoid At All Costs.
While most of us know the public relations industry still has trouble with blogger outreach (largely, because it's not scalable like mass news release distribution), it was still refreshing to read Arik Hanson's takeaway from a Twitter chat session. For some reason, public relations professionals think they can blast pitch bloggers and then, assuming the blogger has enough reach, attempt to make them part of the messaging team. I don't get it and neither should you. Check out all eight tips from Hanson. There isn't a lemon in the bushel.

• PageRank Explained, Without Math (Really).
Ian Lurie helps explain that for all the good some SEO specialists think they are doing, they are sometimes doing the opposite. If you want people to go to a specific place, like a Website, then linking to the site makes sense. But if you add too many links, you could unintentionally divert all the juice somewhere else. Maybe it'll come back. Maybe it won't. It's hard to say. This might also be the reason that people are linking less in general, being a bit more stingy on sharing the water (to borrow from Lurie's analogy). That's fine, except some are forgetting to attribute too. Strike a balance between the two extremes.

• Slave to the Packaging.
Any post that includes something about Rush deserves attention. Ike Pigott wrote a post about artificial boundaries created within the music industry with bands jumping off the road to produce albums and then restarting their tours all over again. Fortunately, things change. Music is still undergoing significant change. Some for the better and some for the worse. The better, depending on how you look at it, are bands that produce EPs and then finish albums on the road. That, of course, is only a sliver of Pigott's post. Take a moment to read the comparisons to networks and news releases.

• Kent State’s Online PR Master’s Is Set To Launch
While Bill Sledzik intended the post to be a little bit promotional, there is much more there than meets the eye. Kent State is moving in the direction of many universities in offering an online master's degree (many of which require some in-person class time). While the downside to an online degree is that it still has a reputation of being easy, I'm hoping universities like Kent State can help shore the image up. People like me, who missed out on a master's due to location constraints, are much more likely to pursue degrees long distance. If you can hear the teachers, read the books, ask questions, and complete the assignments ... what's the difference anyway?

• The Spinning Of A Tragedy (w/video)
When I first noticed that Bob Conrad was going to tackle this tragedy, I didn't know what to think. It was one of those subjects that could prove enlightening or disastrous (much like when I was asked to write disaster response tips after a mining tragedy). Conrad is the perfect person to tackle this one, which hits too close to home. There is an anti-police public relations campaign being lobbied against a police department for what appears to have been unavoidable. Unfortunately, given the facts, this will only prolong the pain felt by everyone. Check it out and then be sure to read the follow up post too.

Being Teachable: Better Communication

One of my friends reminded me of an interesting story yesterday. The story, by John R. Noe, tells how one employee became frustrated by being passed up for promotions despite 20 years at the company.

Charlie was passed up three times in all, each time by people who had been with the company less time. So Charlie decided to confront his boss. He demanded to know why he was being passed up despite "20 years of experience."

"No, Charlie," the boss said. "You have been in the job 20 years, but you do not have 20 years of experience … you have one year of experience twenty times."

The Art Of Being Teachable.

Noe attributed the lack of promotion to making the same mistakes over and over. But mistakes are just reminders that you have plenty to learn. There are many people who never make mistakes, but still never gain experience while they drift along. They simply imitate the actions of the day before, never budging from the complacent comfortability they carve out for themselves.

There are dozens of reasons. Noe cited three: pride (the assumption they already know), skepticism (the doubt that anything can be improved upon), and lack of time (being so busy with the routine, there isn't time to expand horizons).

You have to give these things up to be teachable. And for some people, it isn't easy. Complacency is a drug, more addictive than crack. It might feel good for weeks, months, or years, but eventually it will kill you dead. Maybe not literally. But then again, maybe it will.

Why Being Teachable Is Important For Communicators.

When public relations people or communication folks complain about not getting a seat at the table, I always chuckle. Generally, the only reason they don't have a seat at the table is because they haven't earned it. They bring nothing of value.

Don't get me wrong. I don't mean they are not valuable. I mean that they don't bring anything of value to the executive team, even though they have every tool and skill set at their disposal. They can conduct market research, run competitive analysis, scour industry articles, listen to people within the company, and come up with breakthroughs. But most of them don't.

Most professionals misapply a bad habit they pick up in school. They try to force other people's case studies onto the business or over a situation. So instead of becoming strategic thinkers, they strategically imitate what everyone else does. You can see it online, all the time. The most popular posts are laundry lists of things you can imitate. (That's not to say some lists aren't insightful).

You can turn all that on its head, though. Look outside your profession and listen, observe, read, test, experiment and see what will really work for your situation and circumstance. Some of the best ideas I've learned over the years come from areas one or two steps removed from what most people think I do. It's also a path directly opposite of advice that tells you to specialize.

If you want to be a better anything, the ratio of listening vs. talking (or doing) is about 80:20. That's why things take a little longer for some. Communicating (or writing) is only about 20 percent of the job. But there are plenty of people who can plunk out colorful copy if you prefer. Those are the folks with one year of experience 20 times.

Whitewashing Oil Spills: Control The Crisis Not The Communication

How much did the government whitewash the Gulf Coast oil spill? It almost doesn't matter. When trust relies on reputation, even little lies take their toll during a crisis and during the post-crisis analysis.

In this case, the administration seems poised to defend itself, regardless. After the presidential commission released its largely neutral preliminary report, the rebuttal by the administration has been to criticize any criticisms. The approach was exemplified by the initial response to the report.

"The federal government response was full force and immediate, and the response focused on state and local plans and evolved when needed. As directed by the President, the response was based on science, even when that pitted us against BP or state and local officials, and the response pushed BP every step of the way," — White House Office of Management and Budget

Three Most Critical Areas Where Communication Broke Down.

1. Inconsistent definitions of the relationship between the government and BP. The government attempted to make the case it was deferring to, in charge of, and a partner with BP. Clearly, the government could not be all three simultaneously.

In most circumstances, the definitions of a relationship will only change erratically when the organization is incompetent, or, more likely, is attempting to position the itself to grab any credit but push off any criticism. In this case, more emphasis seems to have been placed on attempting to control public perception instead of the oil spill.

2. Fear of negative public perception. Perhaps one of the most troubling aspects of the report was that it revealed how the White House was directly involved in controlling information (but not the operation) from the start. According to the Associated Press, the White House budget office even denied a request from NOAA to make public the worst-case scenario estimates.

In most circumstances, the most likely reason any organization would withhold such information, which in this case was actualized, would be because they believed that the denial of these facts would delay public outrage. Specific in this crisis, it seems clear the Unified Command also had worst-case estimates, but did not release them in a timely manner. Some Coast Guard responders are on record as saying that much of the initial effort was slow and unfocused.

3. Too many messengers with conflicting information. In an effort to show more "transparency" and that the government was in control of the crisis, numerous agency heads became involved in a public decision making process rather than deferring to qualified people in the field. This dramatically politicized the crisis.

In most circumstances, organizations that continually shift spokespeople or cater to dozens of spokespeople to make a show of involvement while minimizing accountability for the entire organization. Ergo, if any singular spokesperson misspeaks or if a statement is later proven false, the other spokespeople can refute or denounce what was said.

Crisis Communication Must Be Clear, Accurate, And Human.

Communication is the single most powerful tool in effective governance. However, it can also be the greatest liability unless communication it is clear, accurate, and human.

For this administration, there seems to have been too much emphasis on public perception damage and not enough on environmental damage. Specifically, the administration idealized what public perception it wanted to actualize: The administration was fully vested in minimizing the crisis despite everyone working against them for personal gain.

The reality was very different, enough so that no amount of spin could be believed. Imagine how differently this crisis might have played out if the focus remained on the crisis as opposed to the crisis communication.

Then, the administration would have invested full resources in the initial response and had one spokesperson deliver a consistently honest and accurate accounting of what was being done. Other agency heads could then reinforce the message and their confidence in the spokesperson as well as the decisions being made. In the best case scenario, the administration would have overcommitted and contained the spill. In the worst case scenario, the public would have accepted the damage.

There are only two possible explanations for the way the administration handled the crisis response. Either the administration was overconfident and therefore negligent and incompetent in its handling of the crisis on the front end. Or, it purposely attempted to manipulate public perception to downplay the severity of the crisis or their inability to deal with it.

If you are interested, we've chronicled a great deal of the communication as part of a living case study. Perhaps the most likely explanation can be found there. Or perhaps the better lesson is that effective communication follows action and not our preferred fantasies. Case study closed. Maybe.

Losing Contacts: The Open Network

A couple years ago, I considered moving out of the Las Vegas market after being approached by a Fortune 500 company. The offer was nearly perfect until they tossed one question that was a deal breaker in my book. It was about my "book" or what was once called a Rolodex.

"How many media contacts do you have in your Rolodex?

Seriously? A tech company even using the term seemed suspect enough, Fortune 500 or not. But the real rub was that it just doesn't matter how many business cards you've filed away. Social networking has created an open network, where the value of industry connections and media relationships are based on quality, not quantity. I tried to explain, but they just didn't get it.

"It just doesn't matter what the industry is, any seasoned public relations professional can create a fistful of media contacts overnight and the quality of the relationships will be established almost immediately based on the initial interaction."

That was the power and promise of the social network. Even if you didn't have certain contacts, doors could be opened easily enough. Almost everyone on the planet is one or two or three degrees removed from the contacts you have today (assuming they are real relationships).

And then I read Fear and Loathing on LinkedIn this morning and realized the opposite is true too. If everyone's doors are open to you, then your doors are likely to be open to everyone else too. As HR technology writer Steve Boese pointed out, everyone has access to your network.

It used to be, you'd only have to worry about competing recruiters luring your best talent away to what is usually seen as an uncertain path, now it looks like soon your friends at LinkedIn may help guide the way a little more clearly," wrote Boese. "But don't be afraid, if you lose that top marketing manager you can probably find another one soon enough."

The same can be said for small shops, consultants, and, well, any business really. Online networks are open books. And if you don't think that someone isn't interested in stealing away your employees, clients, customers, and maybe your spouse, then you might be as naive as new snow.

While the value of quantity connections used to carry value on the supply and demand side, it just doesn't scale. One thousand exclusive connections only mean something when they are exclusive. Today, those 1,000 connections are an open book. Of course, it's nothing to panic about, as Boese suggests. It's the best thing that happened for everybody.

"Fear melts when you take action towards a goal you really want." — Robert G. Allen

The remedy is never fear or attempting to lock down those precious connections. It's very much the opposite. Make them precious. Make them count. Because in the new economy, the quality of the relationship isn't secured by keeping your connections hidden or bombarding them with frequency. It's based on something else, which is closer to friendship.

I have many friends, but only a few close ones. Those I could consider close (and I don't necessarily mean "secret keeping" close) are the kind of friends that I could reach out to once every ten years and we would pick up where we left off, as if the last time we connected was a week ago. I have many acquaintances that are very much the same (former students included).

It's the only kind of relationship that has real value, and you can even make them with first-time connections if you are adept enough, value them enough, and keep them off the agenda. Anything less isn't a connection, it's only a contact. If you focus more on the former as opposed to the latter, you can almost guarantee that your employees will be unrecruitable, your client unstealable, and your future connections unwavering (even if you never met them beyond a post, email, or tweet).

And if you don't believe it? Well, then keep doing what you're doing. You'll figure it out in your own time, probably when you grow weary of the revolving door. And that's something you can count on.