J.C. Penney recently crowdsourced its logo to the design community, including the student population of University of Cincinnati and RISD. The result is a reasonably well-executed, if not a little boring logo. I’m not here to say whether I think the logo’s any good or bad, but the circumstances surrounding it are a little controversial. Not only did J.C. Penney step over a historied identity, they crowdsourced their design solution, a huge taboo in the design community. It could be argued that we’re finding ourselves in a bit of a familiar situation. Remember the last time a household name company decided to rebrand using a square and Helvetica? Yes, that’s right, it was Gap, and the rebrand was a fiasco! The public revolted and Gap retreated and brought back their old identity. Are we in for a repeat of history?
Where are the pitchforks? The mobs? Why aren’t people up in arms?
I think the answer is that J.C. Penney really doesn’t have any brand loyalists. Gap might not have a cult following either, but I’d argue that Gap at least has a brand that means something that people relate to. When I think of Gap, I get very definite feelings about the brand. They aren’t even necessarily overly positive feelings, but I can say with certainty to myself that Gap usually produces quality goods that are reasonably priced, and I enjoy certain Gap goods.
J.C. Penny lacks the same brand power. It occupies a space that is overcrowded by competitors, none of which try very hard to distinguish themselves from one another. When I think J.C. Penney, my memories are mixed with that of Kohl’s or Mervyn’s. Even then, my feelings toward the brand are more along the lines of, “Oh, they sell cheap stuff. I think I got some back to school stuff there back in elementary school,” rather than meaningful reflections of what J.C. Penney represents (or tries to represent).
You might argue this isn’t a very fair fight, because Gap is a creator of its products, and imbues each one of their products with meaning by stamping each of their goods with their logo. J.C. Penney, on the other hand, is a retailer of bargain goods. But that’s not a very good excuse. Target, for example, has done an excellent job distinguishing themselves in a crowded market. Despite facing fierce competition from the likes of K-Mart, Walmart and others, they’ve done an excellent job carving themselves a niche with quality products and great marketing. I don’t think I own anything that carries the Target brand, but I still have generally positive feelings when I think of Target.
After all, brands can be aspirational, such as luxury brands like Ferrari. They can become something that we hope one day to be more like, as if we can acquire their qualities over time. Brands can represent things that we respect, like quality, equity, durability or even frugality, and we tend to have stronger feelings towards them. But if nothing was really invested towards the meaning of a brand to begin with, how can we get worked up about it at all?
Besides, one of my coworkers brought up probably the best point: It’s not like J.C. Penney shoppers are connoisseurs of good taste to begin with.
