• by Erik Sass , Staff Writer @eriksass1, October 12, 2010

"Hey honey, remember how I said I was going to get that sex change and join that radical anarchist terror cell and turn our home into a vegan commune for refugee boat people? Well, I want you to know that I value your input, because you are part of the decision-making process, so as per your desperate pleas I've decided not to go ahead with these plans."

Gee, thanks.

In some situations even a total, humiliating reversal can't quite lay a bad idea to rest. This is doubly true when the bad idea involves corporate tinkering with a familiar and maybe even beloved icon, as Coca-Cola learned with its embarrassing retreat from New Coke back in the 1980s; even after restoring Coca-Cola Classic, the company faced a barrage of questions from marketers and shareholders. Like: what, exactly, the hell were you guys thinking? Did you even do consumer research before making this change? If so, how could your consumer research be so dreadfully wrong? Are you sure the subjects were alive? Were they human?

Now that Gap has rescinded its entirely unnecessary and vastly disliked logo change, executives may be hoping the issue will just subside. But the change was too visible, and American consumers have too much time on their hands, for the whole thing to go away. At the very least, the advertising and marketing trade press and blogosphere will have to bat this around for a few more weeks, in an attempt to settle some important questions: just how dumb was this plan? Was it so dumb it will permanently hurt the business? Or will it become a humorous corporate talking point, like New Coke, which ultimately serves to show that the company is responsive to consumer sentiment?

Social media will continue to play a part in all this, of course. In retrospect it's not clear why Gap asked people to submit their own ideas for a new logo on Facebook, if the company was just going to cave to public opinion and go back to the old logo. The fact is the whole thing happened so quickly that I imagine none of the responses were actually coordinated: whoever is in charge of Gap's social media presence tried to spin the mistake into a cool interactive campaign, exemplifying catchwords like online engagement and user-generated content, while senior execs were simply deciding whether to can the new logo and go back to the old one.

The result is some regrettable inconsistency in public relations: I wonder how many aspiring designers spent all weekend working on a new logo, thinking this was their chance to hit it big, only to have their hopes dashed on Monday with the news that Gap Classic is back.