UPDATE, 10/12/10: While The Gap has announced that it will scrap the new logo in the wake of online criticism, a survey of Gap customers revealed that 17% even knew the company had posted a new logo. For details, take a look at the eConsultancy post that raises the same question I did: Is the online reaction to a design change really representative of your audience?

People don’t like change, or so the old saying goes.

In general, I disagree. People love change. They buy new cars, new clothes, new houses. They try new hair styles, grow mosutaches or beards, get better jobs, want their teams to play in new stadiums. What people don’t like is the unknown, which is why most organizational change initiatives fail.

When it comes to having change foisted upon us, though—especially when the change is from something comfortable and familiar—some people rebel. These days, that rebellion happens swiftly and passionately on Twitter, Facebook and blogs.

Organizations introducing the change need to step back and evaluate just how seriously they need to take that negative reaction.

While I’ve thought about this issue before—when Facebook introduced privacy changes, for instance—it has been brought into sharp relief by the avalanche of criticism cascading down on The Gap since the venerable apparel company introduced its new logo. AdAge said it resembled “somethign a child created using a clip-part gallery.” A Harvard Business Review blogger said “it looks like something my pet hamster could cook up in PowerPoint.” Gawker called it one of “branding’s greatest misses.” There’s already an app that lets you create a Twitter avatar based on the logo as a tool of ridicule. Parody accounts—@gaplogo and @oldgaplogo—have sprung up.

Between blog posts, tweets and Facebook reactions, there have been thousands of people publicly declaring the logo a monumental fail.

The reaction seems unanimous, but in the context of other changes to brand and identity that have provoked severe backlash, organization’s shouldn’t necessarily accept the criticism at face value.

I can’t recall the introduction of a single new logo that was met with universal praise and admiration. Pepsi’s new logo met with a torrent of disdain, but nobody talks about it today; the updated logo is on all of Pepsi’s packaging, advertising and marketing and seems to be doing what it was designed to do. WalMart, CitiGroup, Procter & Gamble, EDS, Unisys, Lucent—these were all widely reviled logos that, once the initial furor died down, became the benignly-accepted identity of the organization or brand.

The degree of furor, though, has been far more intense for those logos introduced since the rise of social media.

The fact is, when it comes to a logo or a site design with which people are familiar and comfortable, the introduction of something new can stir an immediate and visceral hostility. It is these folks who are inclined to blog or tweet their vexation. Those who like the new look or don’t care are nowhere near as likely to share their acceptance or ambivalence as those who despise it.

Companies don’t change identities or designs lightly. Rarely is the expense of a new logo incurred on a whim. Usually the change is designed to symbolize greater change to the brand or the organization. Haters of the new logo usually weren’t privy to the strategic planning that led to the decision.

For organizations introducing design or identity changes, before jerking the proverbial knee in response to feedback from the crowd, stop and think:

Were you prepared?

If you’re surprised at the depth of feeling that seems to prevail among those reacting to the new look, you weren’t ready. Know before you unveil that new logo that most of the feedback will be bad. Gap spokesperson Louse Callagy said the company was taken by surprise by the response to the logo, which was well-received internally.

They shouldn’t have been, regardless of the legitimacy of the complaints.

Who’s complaining?

Look behind the Internet ire and analyze who’s behind the complaints. It’s no surprise that many of the criticisms of The Gap’s logo come from competing designers. If it’s not your customer base that’s up in arms, you might want to take a deep breath and adopt a wait-and-see approach rather than rush out a revision. If tests with customers were positive and competing designers hate it, it may make sense to rely on your research rather than the wisdom of Twitter.

On the other hand, if the criticism comes directly from your customer base, fast action is required, like taken by Tropicana after its new logo introduced last year led to substantial declines in sales. (Isn’t it interesting that Tropicana is part of PepsiCo? I should also note, by way of disclosure, that I do consulting work with PepsiCo, although not on their logos or brand identities.)

Do you have confidence in your processes?

In his post for The Harvard Business Review blog, Umair Haque sniffs:

Like most companies, the Gap just doesn’t understand the game-changing power of design. The new logo reeks of something designed not just by committee ??? but by a committee of beancounters who don’t have a creative bone in their body, a suite full of suits who just might be missing the empathic, intuitive right hemisphere of the brain entirely.

That, of course, is mere supposition. The logo was designed by Trey Laird and his team at Laird and Partners, which has done design work for Tommy Hilfiger, Calvin Klein, Donna Karan, Nautica, stetson and DeBeers, to name just a few. It was commissioned, according to a statement from Gap President Marka Hansen, because “our brand and our clothes are changing and rethinking our logo is part of aligning with that.”

If you’re confident in the process you’ve implemented to arrive at a new design, don’t throw it all away because of the reaction you get in the first few days.

Are the underlying reasons for criticism valid?

In addition to analyzing the makeup of the haters, analyze the rationale for their hatred. In many cases, you can’t find any. It’s a purely emotional response. In some cases, though, you can find nuggets of wisdom. Some (not all) of the criticism of The Gap logo is based on its use of Helvetica for the logotype solution. (For what it’s worth, I agree with this. My first reaction was, “Helvetica? Really?”)

Are you ready to engage?

If you determine that the criticisms are valid and you’ve made a horrible mistake, do you return to the same process that led you here in the first place, or are you ready to engage your audience in a discussion of where to go next?

When Best Buy posted requirements for a social media position, Chief Marketing Officer Barry Judge looked beyond the “this is the stupidest job description ever” posts to learn why people didn’t like it. Ultimately, he invited suggestions for improving it, then issued an updated description. And to her credit, The Gap’s Hansen has solicited suggestions on the company’s Facebook page:

We know this logo created a lot of buzz and we’re thrilled to see passionate debates unfolding! So much so we’re asking you to share your designs. We love our version, but we’d like to ... see other ideas. Stay tuned for details in the next few days on this crowdsourcing project.

The Gap’s new logo really is awful

All that said, I have to admit that I’m one of the haters in this case. The new logo reminds me of a design I employed on my website a decade ago:

And seriously, guys. Helvetica?