What about the GAP logo made them decide to change it in the first place? Was it too 'old school'? Another person on my team here used the analogy of Mickey Mouse. Here is a charater that has evolved with the times to become just as relevant to the audience now as he was years back. The difference is the transition was not such a dramatic change that people couldn't recognize him for who he was or what he represented. If GAP was intended to 'go mod', they should do so in a more elegant way next time instead of just doing a complete re-vamp.
Would be nice to be able to read what people wrote in the OTHER box. Agree with Chris K. that the logo doesn't make the brand. Changing the logo doesn't change the brand - great brands do it all the time! I don't believe that's where the brand equity is.
What brand design firm produced the new GAP identity?
Chris - Thanks for the comment. I added a feature to the poll where people can add their own answers, but I agree with your point about this too.
I don't think it's an either or situation. Look at Google's logo. It's not that people are so simple as to think the logo must be the same every time. Brand equity is more than a logo. And managers that think that it's just the logo are shortsighted and will suffer for it.