Here's one in the eye for Malcolm Gladwell. The New Yorker's big-haired, big-brained and big-mouthed columnist argued in a recent article that 'the revolution will not be Tweeted'. 
 
 Well now, Gap has gone back on plans to revamp its logo, thanks to pressure from Twitter and Facebook. Oh yeah – social media brought the Wispa back, it got Rage Against the Machine to number one in the music charts and now it's taken on the High Street. And Malcolm thinks social media can't bring social change. Tsk tsk. 
 
 Oh alright, I don't care about Gap's logo either. If you've missed it – and I wouldn't blame you if you had – Gap said it was changing its logo to a new one that nobody much liked. Faced with complaints, Gap said they wouldn't make the change after all. For all I know, this was a Salad Cream-style publicity stunt. 
 
 A far more sensible response to Gladwell came yesterday from the founders of Twitter. Ev Williams and Biz Stone dismissed Gladwell's argument, saying that Twitter, like any communication tool, could be used as a complement to activism but could not replace action. 
 
 Williams said: "Anyone who’s claiming that sending a tweet by itself is activism, that’s ludicrous — but no one’s claiming that, at least no one that’s credible." 
 
 That's the most important point – and it's the reason why I haven't bothered writing about Gladwell so far – he's arguing against a position that almost nobody has taken. 
 
 Most people are arguing that, like the telephone or email, services like Twitter can be quick and effective communication tools. Even Gladwell acknowledges that. In a Q&A with New Yorker readers, Gladwell said: "In combination with grass roots work, [Twitter] can be a very useful tool." 
 
 So what's the problem, then? Once again this sounds like a journalist from traditional media trying to make a new tool fit an old paradigm and complaining when it doesn't. Citizen journalism won't replace professional journalism, tweeting won't replace activism, home cooking won't replace restaurants, dogs won't replace cats. Why is all this so hard to grasp? 
 
 Gladwell has form in this area, sadly. In 2006 he was demonstrating his inability to grasp blogging. "Without the New York Times," he said, "what would there be for bloggers to blog about." I said at the time he was wrong but at least he was a few years ahead of Andrew Marr. 
 
 In dismissing Twitter in 2010, Gladwell is right on schedule. Expect his takedown of Foursquare some time in 2012. ||||| (CNN) -- The internet's logo snobs won this one. 
 
 Gap Inc. on Monday announced it will drop a new version of its logo after thousands of Facebook and Twitter users called for a return to the classic blue box with tall, white letters -- a logo the clothing retailer has used for more than 20 years. 
 
 The now-defunct new logo featured a white background, black letters and a small blue square in the top right corner. After the company proposed the new logo on its website on October 4, the internet lit up with snotty comments about the new look. "It reminds me of the old Microsoft Free Clip-art galleries," one Facebook user wrote. "I can't believe this is happening." 
 
 Another wrote: "It totally looks like a powerpoint design!" 
 
 The company responded with a Facebook post of its own on Monday. 
 
 "OK. We've heard loud and clear that you don't like the new logo," the company said. "We've learned a lot from the feedback. We only want what's best for the brand and our customers." 
 
 More than 1,700 people clicked that they "liked" that decision. 
 
 "Yay! I don't know why it matters, but it does," one Facebook user wrote in response to that post. 
 
 Another Facebook user wrote: "bit of an embarrassing 180 [degree turn], but at least you had the guts to face up to it, well done." 
 
 After the logo complaints started rolling in, Gap on October 6 said it would "crowdsource" the design of its brand, meaning it would take alternate suggestions from fans and might decide to use one of them. 
 
 But on Monday the company said that idea didn't work either. 
 
 "We've learned a lot in this process," the company said in a press release. "And we are clear that we did not go about this in the right way. We recognize that we missed the opportunity to engage with the online community. This wasn't the right project at the right time for crowdsourcing." 
 
 A Gap spokeswoman did not immediately respond to CNN's requests for comment. 
 
 The back-and-forth has spawned several joke websites. 
 
 One, called Crap Logo Yourself, lets people create their own icons in the style of the now-dead Gap logo. 
 
 And two Twitter accounts were born from the snafu. 
 
 @NewGapLogo has been responding to complaints. 
 
 "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," said an October 7 post on that Twitter feed. 
 
 Another, @OldGapLogo, had been calling for a return to the old logo. On Tuesday, however, that account posted what appeared to be a final tweet: 
 
 "Well...looks like my work here is done. Peace. I'm out," it said. 
 
 Plenty of news sites and blogs took their stabs at the new logo, too. 
 
 Vanity Fair even wrote an obituary for it: 
 
 "The new Gap logo is survived by its antagonistic Twitter feed and a dozen 'failed branding strategies' slide shows, in which it will be archived in the annals of history," the magazine wrote. "To heaven, the Helvetica now ascends." 
 
 This obviously isn't the first time a company has backed off of a branding change. The blog The Stir has a nice roundup of marketing history's biggest blunders, including the New Coke experiment. 
 
 For more information about why Gap says it changed the logo in the first place, see this article by Marka Hansen, president of Gap North America, on the Huffington Post. 
 
 "We want our customers to take notice of Gap and see what it stands for today," Hansen wrote on October 7. "We chose this design as it's more contemporary and current. It honors our heritage through the blue box while still taking it forward." 
 
 Well, at least until they changed it back again.
– Who says social media don't matter? Malcolm Gladwell, the New Yorker's "big-haired, big-brained and big-mouthed columnist," may think Twitter is a silly fad, but the Gap logo case says otherwise, writes Shane Richmond for the Telegraph. The retailer recently abandoned its cheap-looking new logo after an outcry online. "And Malcolm thinks social media can’t bring social change. Tsk tsk," he writes. The iconic American retailer's decision to ditch the ugly logo came after a wave of highly critical—and occasionally hilarious—comments posted to Twitter and Facebook. "It reminds me of the old Microsoft Free Clip-art galleries," wrote one person on Facebook, according to CNN. "It totally looks like a powerpoint design!" wrote another. (Click here to read more on Twitter.)