Here we go again. This week, another major consumer brand unveiled a new logo. This time around, it’s my beloved Starbucks.
Now, don’t get me wrong: Some logos do need upgrades. The original can and sometimes should be improved upon. Belk’s latest logo change – while not necessary – wasn’t actually all that bad, for example. People are still going on about the Pepsi logo redesign, the Tropicana incident is still used as a cautionary tale in design and brand management circles, and of course, there is the king of the logo redesign debacles: Gap:
Seemingly undaunted by the prospect of having its own logo redesign firebombed across the Twitternets by masses of disappointed customers and fans, Starbucks moved ahead to mark its 40th birthday with such an exercise, and the result is displayed below. Gone are the words “starbucks” and “coffee.” Gone is the familiar ring of green. The siren has been… “liberated.”
As a fan of Starbucks – something I routinely have to apologize for to my coffee snob friends – I have to admit that I am not thrilled. I mean… it isn’t bad. But it isn’t great either. Or even good. But I will get back to that.
First, from a brand management standpoint, I tend to look at rebranding projects like this one as exercises in futility: Starbucks didn’t need a new logo. Its current one isn’t hurting sales. It isn’t hurting the business. No one was complaining that it was ugly, old or ineffective. The Starbucks brand, in fact, relies on the familiarity and authenticity of its universally recognized logo to sell $5 cups of coffee. I would even venture to guess that the closer the logo brings a Starbucks customer to the original experience of being at Seattle’s Pike Street store, the more its perceived value will tend to increase. Changing the logo, making it more conceptual and less… rustic effectively increases the distance between the customer and Pike Street rather than shortening it. Thus, not only was the rebranding unnecessary in the sense that it will not increase sales or improve the business in any way, it also constitutes somewhat of a risk in that it effectively dilutes the brand for consumers. Not super clever when both McDonald’s and Dunkin Donuts are making a strong push in the coffee retail world with decent coffee and lower prices.
From a business standpoint, the expense of now having to replace every logo at every store and change the logo on every bag, box, cup and mug – all for the sake of… change – can’t possibly be the smartest investment for Starbucks, considering that the impact on sales, on brand loyalty, and on business in general will be essentially zero. Sure, it will get a nice spike in online mentions. But there are better and more cost-effective ways of doing that. (I just hope that this “project” wasn’t the reason why Starbucks prices jumped up this month. That would be a bit disappointing for loyal customers like me.)
Finally, from a design standpoint, I understand the tendency to want to simplify a logo, to strip it down to its essence… but there is a point where stripping down just makes a logo look bland. Not so much when it sits by itself on a sheet of paper (it actually looks fine on its own) but when printed on a cup, it looks unfinished. It just doesn’t pop anymore. It just kind of sits there, missing the rest of itself. The new design strips the cup of its appeal, of its energy, and this is a serious problem for a brand whose image is so dependent on the look of its packaging.
One of the rare branding icons of the 20th century – not the Starbucks logo itself but the Starbucks cup of coffee – is what Starbucks is effectively destroying with this decision. I don’t know the extent to which Starbucks’ management realizes that the cup itself has always been at least as important to brand loyalty as the contents of the cup – if not more so. Look at the image of the different logos on the cups (above). Doesn’t the new cup just look… like something is missing?
Though the logo change has its fans, it seems that they are in the minority. One fan in particular expressed his disappointment on Starbucks’ Facebook page shortly after the announcement: “Was the Starbucks corporate office asleep through all of the Gap controversy when they tried changing their logo? Leave it alone! There’s nothing wrong with it.” (Source – CNN Money)
Others joined in the protest:
“Who’s the bonehead in your marketing department that removed the world-famous name of Starbucks Coffee from your new logo? This gold card user isn’t impressed.”
“I prefer the old logo. I’ve been a Starbucks fan since the late 80’s. I’m all for change…I think it’s great, but I’m not impressed with the new logo.”
“Removing the Starbucks name off your logo does not make any sense. I do not see the logic of your business development folks.”
“Your logo is what makes Starbucks, Starbucks. Whenever I’m in an airport or a mall, I look for that glorious green sign – it tells me that help is on the way! Anyone can draw a green mermaid. Having the mermaid without the Starbucks around it is incomplete. Do you really want us thinking “this is incomplete” when we’re consuming your product?”
“I’m very disappointed in the new logo. Simplistic logos and designs are great for many corporations but not yours… Very unimpressed.”
“Don’t fix what isn’t broken.”
“Looks like Starbucks is trying to pull a Gap move. FAIL. I hate the new logo.”
“Please keep the words. Don’t dumb down the logo.”
“Might as well hold a dunkin donuts cup if i am going to hold a cup with a POS logo.“
And my favorite: “Ew.”
I was hard-pressed to find a whole lot of comments on Starbucks’ Facebook page that were positive. I did find a few, but they seemed to be eclipsed by the preponderance of comments denouncing the change as a bad idea.
Ultimately though, none of this matters. If Starbucks wants to change its logo, it will. As bland and uninspired as it may be, it isn’t nearly as awful as The Gap’s redesign in 2010, nor is it the end of the world. So rather than ramble on about it, I thought I might suggest a little exercise in rebranding, à la Starbucks: What if we took other circular logos and… “freed the mermaid,” so to speak? What would happen to say… BMW, VW and other popular logos? Probably something like this:
Not exactly improvements either. (Please feel free to post your ideas somewhere and link to your beautiful work in the comment section.)
Not to end on a sarcastic note though (um… never mind), I want to close this post by turning to the future of 2021 and ponder what Starbucks’ 50th anniversary logo will look like. Maybe something a little like this…
(Forgive the really bad photoshop cropping. I was in a hurry.)
Better yet, this image I just pulled from Starbucks’ very own Facebook page:
God bless user generated content.
At any rate, time for me to head over to Starbucks and grab myself a little morning courage – with the good logo – at least until March.
And who knows, maybe we will all eventually grow to like the new logo. In due time. Why not.
Cheers.
Brand Building and Online Marketing Blog 
I could not agree more. I thing the logo change will actually dilute their branding.
They completely removed the name. Is the lady unique, not really so they could be opening the door for some identifying mark confusion at some point.
The only possible reasoning is product line or expansion of other brands held ie Seattle’s Best and they are wanting to convert to a generic corporate mark to be used across all holdings and ventures that may not be “Starbucks”.
But this does not mean that they should change the “coffee” labeling logo?
Your right, if they are changing across all “starbucks” coffee and products that will be a huge endeavor. I wonder what their shareholders think about that ding against their dividends?
The corporate umbrella question is a good point. I wondered about that too. Something along the lines of PepsiCo vs. Pepsi, Tropicana, Quaker and Gatorade? It’s possible.
By removing “coffee” from the corporate logo, Starbucks adapts their mark to a more generic “brand” that also sells music, tea, smoothies, sandwiches, etc. (They will probably jump into another category this year. They usually do.)
So yes, this could be an effort to broaden the context of the brand a little bit, and align it with Starbucks Corporate’s strategy of expansion.
If that is indeed the case, why not simply use the “new” logo as the overarching corporate mark, but keep the “Starbucks Coffee” logo for its coffee shops and products? Like PepsiCo and Pepsi, for example.
I don’t know… I’m sure it seemed like a good idea when someone at corporate rationalized it, but it just seems like another branding albatross to most people, even outside of the brand management field.
Cheers.
I can’t help but think Starbucks won’t be here in 2021 (nice iteration of the logo by then, BTW). They’ve begun adding wine and beer to their menus in the afternoons in Chicago locations. Anyone ever heard of sticking to what you do best? I predict between the beer and wine and the logo change…just for the sake of change, that Starbucks is a company that won’t be around in 10 years.
Beer and wine? Reminds me of the time when Starbucks decided it was going to also become a music store. Remember those painful six months?
Yes: Stick to your core business. Do that better than everyone else, and you have a platform. The moment you start floundering all over the place, trying to penetrate new markets (which Starbucks does every year), you start to lose your edge.
Yet expanding your brand by moving beyond your core business worked very well for another superbrand: Apple. They were a computer company. A software company, even. When they decided to get into the media player business, then the smartphone business (the device business, basically) many people said the same thing. They cautioned that Apple was also taking its eye off the ball, that it should stick to its core business. Turns out that Apple made it work. It went from being a beloved underdog to Microsoft and the PC world to becoming the world’s biggest tech company (it finally outgrew Microsoft last April, as I recall).
So…Starbucks might eventually figure it out. And I think (and hope) that they will still be around in 2021. It would be a shame if the company fell from grace… But the lack of direction it seems to have been suffering the last few years does worry me a bit. They do some things remarkably well, but man, they just like to trip all over themselves too.
My only worry would be this: Every time they launch into one of these ideas, they spend a fortune on it, and it usually goes nowhere. Eventually, someone at Starbucks is going to have to put the hammer down and perhaps not write blank checks for every “business development” idea.
Cheers.
My fav is the 2021 version. I am not understanding the need to reinvent the logo.
While I am complaining – also on my hate list is the new Comedy Central logo and still hating the SciFi change to SyFy (i read it as seefee).
You know, I actually stopped watching SciFi when it became SyFy. It wasn’t intentional. It just fell off my radar.
And yeah, the 2021 version kind of puts it in perspective, doesn’t it?
My fav is the BMW test. It cracks me up every time I look at it.
Cheers, Bobbie.
From a graphic design “squint test” perspective, the new logo dissolves off the field. The double-banded circle anchored the logo in space.
I’m not sure that I’d agree with Gini that Starbucks will be obsolete in eleven years. They won’t exist in the same form/entity, but I don’t think that they will go out of business.
Without having access to their R&D information, this logo design may be a first step toward a conscious rebranding for the health of the entire brand and their subsidiaries.
Coffee, wine, chocolate, light fare all coexist quite happily in European cafés. It may not play in Peoria, but then Starbucks probably won’t elect to open a shop of that nature in a smaller metro.
….I’m thinking aloud at this point.
The new logo is underwhelming at best. Without knowing the big picture, I think it falls under the “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” category.
I think you’re right. But look at PepsiCo vs. Pepsi, for example. You can (and probably should) differentiate your corporate mark from the brands of its divisions.
I can completely see the new logo on the Starbucks Corporate stationery, for example… But leave the coffee company’s mark intact. Starbucks needs to understand that it isn’t Apple or Nike. Their business expansion is a completely different animal.
Spot on, as usual. (I think.)
Cheers.
>I think you’re right. But look at PepsiCo vs. Pepsi, for example. You can (and probably should) differentiate your corporate mark from the brands of its divisions.
Agree totally.
Thanks (I think). 😉
I think the ‘new’ BMW looks pretty good actually!
You scare me sometime. 😀
Shouldn’t the symbols over your Photoshopped 50th anniversary logo read “*$$”?
See, it’s “StarBUCKS” plural. 🙂
Good call.
Were you going for a Shepard Fairey “Obey” vibe when you put together the 2021 logo? http://obeygiant.com/
I’m thinking Starbucks has more in common with Andre the Giant than a mermaid anyway. Both got really huge and did some noteworthy things. What happened to Andre? 😉
Not that I’m a coffee snob. My folks got hooked on Starbucks when we lived in Seattle in the early 80s. Mom used to have friends ship it to her all over the country. By the time Starbucks had stores across the street from one another all over the country, we’d spent time in Germany and got hooked on Tschibo.
I really couldn’t care much less about the Starbucks logo redesign, as it makes no difference to me. I do agree with @mckra1g on the anchoring effect being gone, but unless there’s a pot of Tschibo brewing, I’m sticking with my “blue” Rockstar in a can. 2 for $3 these days, and 240mg of caffeine per can. POW!
Appreciate the case study, sir.
The “Obey” thing must be burned into my brain. I see it now. It also reminded me of the Oil of Olay mark as well.
Very nice analysis, but you may have missed the broader Starbucks strategy. The new logo allows SBUX to move into new products.
What I see is Starbucks unlocking itself from coffee — with a logo that could now go on music, videos, food, soda, clothing, or other products. The company has to grow, and
– its retail channel is maxed out (you can practically see the next Starbucks from the one you’re sitting in)
– its partnerships are maxed out (Starbucks is the coffee for Burger King, how much further can it go?)
– its sales in grocery stores have high penetration
– it has tried dried coffee as well (Via).
In sum, where is the growth in coffee? Nowhere. If that’s a ceiling, Starbucks has to reposition its brand as more of a lifestyle experience, something that may lead to growth in other products or services. As I half-joked yesterday on Twitter, get ready for the cable channel.
You’re absolutely right. I think that’s exactly what they are doing.
But why change the coffee company’s logo? I can see Starbucks Corporate taking on its own mark to un-anchor itself from the coffee business, but if you do that, there is no reason to then attach the “uncoffee” logo to its coffee business.
Take a page from PepsiCo’s model and create this new logo for the overarching corporate entity, but keep the marks intact for its family of brands and businesses. PepsiCo’s mark is completely different from Pepsi’s mark, Gatorade’s mark, and Tropicana’s mark, for example.
The other model (the Nike and Apple model) just doesn’t work for Starbucks, and their attempt to take that route kind of feels like a square peg-round hole approach to me. Aside from the fact that it’s a very expensive way to do it, and the majority of their customers seem to not like it a whole lot.
Excellent comment, Ben. Thank you.
Great blog post as usual! Love the way you always go to the bottom line ($ wasted) of these silly decisions companies make. In this case the meh new logo results in higher prices for us customers – the most uncool thing of all 😦
I couldn’t sleep at night if I were the guy responsible for spending that much cash on something like this.
Isn’t this logo the one you can easily forge and ad some random text around it, called it “star coffee” and people will think this is the real Starbucks due to ” original text” is not there? (Countries like Thailand and such).. Just a thought
Concerning SBUX future logo changes: have you seen the future timeline of the Starbucks logo? http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2011/01/starbucks-logo-timeline-of-future-redesigns.html Funny Stuff
What truly matters more?
What’s on the cup or what’s in it?
What’s on the hood or what’s in it?
Logos don’t drive revenue, products and experiences do.
I completely hear what you are saying, Mike, but bear in mind that…
1. The logo is part of the purchasing decision. It’s what makes people spend $60 on a Nike top instead of $19 on a similar top at Target with identical technical properties. People WANT to sport that Nike logo on their breast, the Apple logo on their device, the Gucci logo on their purse and that familiar Starbucks logo on their cup of coffee. Logos like these form the basis of a complex social language that we can’t just cast aside, no matter how enlightened we are about the true value of an object. 😉
So yes, logos DO drive revenue. What do you think drives black market bootleg and replica industries?
2. The Starbucks cup of coffee – with its logo printed front and center – is as much part of the Starbucks experience as the coffee itself. Let’s face it: Starbucks coffee isn’t THAT wonderful. Look at taste test data compared to say, Dunkin Donuts or most independent coffee shops. What makes a Starbucks venti worth $6 is in great part the fact that you get to walk around with that cup for twenty minutes. If nobody cared about that aspect of the experience, everyone would just get their coffee from McDonald’s McCafe and Starbucks would be out of business. That isn’t how it works.
So Mike, I agree with you in theory, but the reality of human nature is this: Branding drives sales. Logos are part of the experience. Books are judged by their covers.
Cheers. 🙂
Re: your comment on Apple
>>They were a computer company. A software company, even.
Actually if you think back to the original Mac it was really a device, so they had history in that market.
True. Yet not everyone saw it that way.
Olivier,
Great post. Like you, I’m a Starbucks consumer. I’ve had an iced mocha monkey on my back for some time, and it compels me into one of the six Starbucks within 3 miles of my home every single morning.
This is no GAP re-design, to be sure. I’m not even sure we can call it a “new” logo as much as a decaf version of the previous one (non-fat decaf, in fact). Sometimes, less is indeed more, but that’s tricky, and if not done brilliantly, less is less. This logo is bland, and that’s not a good word to associate with coffee. Your comments on the photo of the cups above are spot on. It just looks incomplete by comparison. To me, it feels disposable, or temporary. It has no presence or weight.
It would seem that their intent is to move beyond “mere coffee”, so one can imagine the discussion in the board room, and all the back-patting over being able to drop the name from such an iconic symbol as the siren. “It’ll be like the Nike swoosh, or the Apple apple! They say it all, and without type! We’re brilliant!” Sigh.
As you noted with their dalliance into music, they don’t have a great track record of successful brand extension. Their stab at breakfast sandwiches is even worse (replacing the fresh, coffee aroma with the odors of a greasy spoon diner… yeach!). The experience has always been social, centered around coffee. So, the idea that this is a harbinger of “broader things” is a bit scary. We know they were testing wine and/or beer last year in select locations. Might work. Probably won’t. I for one don’t want to walk into a Starbucks and smell wine, or beer.
For me, the logo always looked like a seal of quality one might find stamped on the cargo being brought to port from around the world. Isn’t that what the siren always embodied anyway, good stuff from around the world brought to make great coffee? A bit of that mystique is gone from the mark, and as a result, from the brand in general.
I don’t hate this logo, but I don’t love it, and don’t understand what it’s bringing to the equation that justifies the expense they’ll incur in the changeover. In the end, it’s still better than that Seattle’s Best abomination!
Cheers.
You had to bring the Seattle’s Best design fiasco into this, didn’t you. 😀
Great comment, man. You just said it all.
Thoughtful post as always. I love it when you put in the photoshop effort!
I agree they didn’t need to change it. However, there’s a reason why BMW’s logo doesn’t say Bavarian Motor Werx. Too restrictive.
The problem with SBUX, and the reason they wanted to tweak it is that they aren’t a coffee company, any more than Nike is still a running shoe company.
I thought the point raised by Howard Schultz in the blog post was valid: in Asian they sell tea. And it’s called Starbucks’ Coffee Tea (even though there isn’t coffee in it).
Gap’s old logo didn’t have a tagline of “somewhat non-descript mall clothing”. If it did, their logo change might have been as appropriate as Starbucks’
Jay, I totally get that. But here’s the deal:
1. What Starbucks doesn’t seem to have figured out is how to keep their core business strong while expanding into other markets. At the core of this puzzle for them is the way they view their own distribution channel: Coffee shops are coffee shops. They can’t be turned into music stores and sandwich joints and wine bars every six months. If Starbucks wants to get into the wine business, they need to start a wine business. If Starbucks wants to launch music stores, they need to launch music stores. What they can’t do is dilute their coffee shop business with every new idea that comes along.
With that in mind, this logo “redesign” would have worked a lot better if Starbucks Corporate had adopted it as its overarching logo for all Starbucks properties, but had left the Starbucks Coffee division logo alone.
Differentiating Starbucks Inc. from Starbucks Coffee would accomplish their goal without confusing (even enraging) its loyal customers. Not only that, but Starbucks wouldn’t now be faced with having to deal with the considerable (and unnecessary) expense of replacing every Starbucks sign around the world and all of its packaging. Shareholders can’t be happy about that little detail.
Right idea, but completely botched execution. In their bid to copy Apple and Nike, the folks at Starbucks simply didn’t think this through. Unfortunate, because it could have been a pretty smooth evolution for them.
I actually like the 2021 version more than the new 2011 one.
sure remove the word coffee (I mean they also serve tea right?) but not the word Starbucks, or at least defer that a few years.
I read and viewed this wonderfully pertinent example a few days ago of this idea in practice, how far do you simplify before you hit simple in minimalist design: http://www.a2591.com/2010/12/minimalist-effect-in-maximalist-market.html
Thanks for the link.
Good analysis – and a fun read, Olivier.
The whole extending-the-brand argument is a false one when it comes to logos because logos are not the brand. Nor does a company / product name = the brand. Up here in Canada we have Canadian Tire – a chain of mostly big-box houseware/hardware/automotive stores. The got their start in tires but now sell everything under the sun. They didn’t feel the need to change their store name to “Canadian Goods” because they realize that they have a strong brand. People get it. Consumers are capable of these stretches, even in marketing / logo gurus aren’t.
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. And I highly recommend a Fast Company article – “The Starbucks Cup Dilemma” Oct 20 / 2010 for more substantive insights. Cheers!
It’s intriguing nobody picked up on Starbucks’ old logo with a registered mark and the new logo with a trademark. (Note the R and TM letters.)
Any reason why?
I noticed that as well.
Trademarks take a while to register. Many times, the USPTO also will want to see the first instance a trade mark was used commercially in order to register it. Thus, until the USPTO has completed the registration process, you are not allowed to use the (r) symbol. It’s mostly a bureaucratic holdup though.
Ahhh I so value how much you make me think more broadly Olivier. But here’s my take…from a non numbers perspective…
She’s freer now.
And follow me for a moment…
I don’t know if Starbucks is wanting to promote a more ‘live and let live’ like experience…
But….
nothing that matters is missing.
It’s really not.
We’re just used to linear….so without her encircled it’s our familiarity that is shook up.
I actually dig what the BMW log would appear and the VW as well but you’ve redesigned it entirely (keep the lines same width and the blue/white)
What I’m seeing? Depending on how all of us learn (whether our strengths are as visual learners or interpersonal or intrapersonal or kinesthetic..or any number of the 12 multiple intelligences)–this will determine whether someone digs the new redesign.
I’d be curious if anyone polls women vs men or those from east vs west coast or polling hemispheres.
Grateful you used the terms liberated and freed as I implied on the facebook thread.
To me they haven’t gone far enuf. She needs an ocean:) But this way she’s looking mightier…like the frontage pieces on yachts and what not.
There’s implications they’re expanding product line. She may well start sponsoring all things yoga etc.
When I go to Starbucks? I buy one of their Tazo teas.
I value that I have that option…And I’ve typically brought a cup…haven’t ever needed to cling theirs
Your articulate rationale tho is wisely written.
And yet…mermaids love to play. She’s freer now. 🙂 And more dominant and proud, assertive and bold looking. And that — to this woman — is a smart move.
That’s nice and all, but that’s a pretty serious departure from what the Starbucks brand is, and why it drives people to pay $6 for a 20 oz latte. 😉
i’m predicting they’re shifting their whole drive…beginning with a new logo…evolving into different products and purchase price…expanding market. (remember what mercedes did?) i’m predicting greener, more earthy, more accessible…
It needs the black to “anchor” it. Yes, we may get “used to” it, but I think it comes across as a desperate attempt to do something to attract attention, albeit negative attention. Childish :}
Yeah. Kind of impulsive in a way.
Instead of considering the impact that the new overall Starbucks brand would have on the Starbucks Coffee brand and business, they went all in.
How can you focus on your core business AND diversify at the same time, if you brand everything the same way?
Not thought through.
Nice post. As far as I know (since we got no internal message– we learned about the new logo through the news as well as everyone else), the logo is only changing on cups, and that we won’t be getting new signage, etc. That is the rumor at least.
I’m glad people are speaking out about the logo. Remember 2-3 years back, when Starbucks tried to pull a type of “heritage” campaign.. They brought the old (nasty, fat siren) logo back, and people went CRAZY. Bad, bad, bad. . And not more than a month later, all of it was gone.
Time will tell, I don’t think it will be a terrible move, but there are definitely consequences. Pepsi did the same thing.
Yeah, I doubt that Starbucks (or any brand) would change its logo on the product but not on the signage. I don’t think that’s ever happened. So… Either they pull back on this, or eventually, the signage changes too.
This might surprise you though, but I liked the brown logo. It was kind of cool as a retro campaign. But yeah, it wasn’t permanent.
Just another Nice Post i will keep up with this one Nice Post mate and Happy 2011
Late to this party, but good post and agree with your thoughts, Olivier. The siren could have simply become the overarching corporate brand, similar to PepsiCo and Pepsi, and we could have skipped all this.
But, where I’m really shaking my head is over the one-way dialogue from Starbucks to its customers. Why didn’t they involve customers in its logo re-design? Why didn’t they crowdsource suggestions and/or allow people to vote on their favorite new rendition of the logo?
I get that the company has the “right” to make changes as they see fit. Perhaps it was a timing issue or one of maintaining creative control. And, for that matter, maybe we will all have new insight come March. No clue.
What I do know that consumers feel intimately connected to this brand. It’s not just coffee, it’s a brand experience that customers have helped create and they feel, well, left out. Seems like a missed opportunity to me.
Thanks again!
Jenifer @jenajean
The simplest thinking makes the symbols so beautiful
simplicity.simplicity.simplicity.
my goal is to be able to to have our brand recognized (ideally,by insiders only) at a glance.
just.a.glance.
a discreet flash of an unusual card, a few #s, a jumbled acronym, or, just.a.bomb.
Itykwim
#149
Love this post. You are exactly right.
Seems crazy to impose these costs when the economy is in such bad shape – for essentially no benefit.
“Making it more conceptual and less… rustic effectively increases the distance between the customer and Pike Street rather than shortening it. ”
Nailed it. A failed attempt at hip that wasn’t needed.
Love the way you break this down. Kuddos.
I think you missed the mark on this one, Olivier. I don’t think Starbucks is changing their logo just for the heck of it. As they move into the Middle Eastern and Asian markets (where their focus will be more heavily on teas), it makes sense for the logo to lose the English language words and “Coffee” moniker.
I also really enjoyed Spike Jones’s post about this topic – wherein he points out that only big brands can get rid of their names altogether.
Why didn’t you look at any of the brands that have had success with removing their names from their logos, such as Nike? Isn’t it possible that we’re simply uncomfortable with change? After all, it’s not a completely redesign, like the Gap logo. It’s simply an evolution of an existing logo. And logos should evolve as a brand evolves.
Fair enough, Holly. This is an opinion piece, nothing more. So… right or wrong could be argued all day long. But consider the following:
1. Nike and Starbucks have completely different logos. Nike’s is not symmetrical. Starbucks’ is. In Nike’s original 3 logos, the lettering looked pretty bad. It looked like an add-on. In fact, the 3rd iteration attempted to create some kind of symmetry by adding a red square. (It didn’t work.) Removing the word Nike actually cleaned up the design.
The letters on Starbucks mark, on the other hand, don’t break up the flow of the design. The outer circle anchors it and defines the brand. Comparing the two is a bit of an apples and oranges topic, from a design perspective.
2. Some would argue that the Gap logo was an evolution as well: The GAP lettering was liberated from the square in the same way that the Starbucks siren was liberated from the ring and lettering. Tomato, tomato. Pepsi got rid of its lettering too, and came up with a whole new logo. Was that just an evolution too? Nope. Fact is, it’s always a redesign. The term “evolution” in this type of context is completely subjective, unfortunately. (And for the record, the Pepsi redesign, IMO, though needed, wasn’t an improvement either.)
3. The reason why Starbucks is changing its logo – as I understand it – has more to do with branching off into new product categories than eliminating language barriers overseas. The current logo is the $6 principal latte’s selling point, and even Spike knows it. It’s what gives Starbucks its cachet. Otherwise, we would all just be getting coffee from wherever.
What’s more likely is Starbucks wants to diversify and needs a mark that doesn’t tie it to just… coffee shops.
Flashback: Starbucks has already tried its hand at the music distribution thing, sandwiches and now beer and wine. Let’s not forget instant coffee and other Target-style retail products. I think it’s pretty clear that it wants to explore other business models. Removing the coffee anchor from the mark allows them to to just that. There’s your real motivation.
But here’s the problem: It is both unnecessary and confusing to consumers.
It is unnecessary because Starbucks could have created this new logo for its corporate entity – the overarching, umbrella Starbucks brand – and kept the Starbucks Coffee mark alone. This would give it the freedom to apply the new mark to non-coffee business concepts without having to worry about associating them to their coffee biz. Not to mention the cost savings of not having to redo every sign in the world, reprint every menu and every cup, change all of the websites and collateral, etc.
It is confusing because if Starbucks becomes a socks, sandwiches, music, video, candy bars, wine, beer, cookies, bananas and T-shirts company, are they now shifting from the coffee company we all know and love to… being something else? Is Starbucks morphing into a sort of upscale 7-11? A Cracker-Barrel type retail experience where you can by Starbucks brownies and board games on your way out of the cafeteria? Will I soon be able to buy Starbucks cheeseburgers in my local store’s frozen section? Should I go to their coffee shop to pick up some Starbucks pizza and pasta salad? Will the all-you-can-eat Chinese buffet be available at all Starbucks, or just in select cities?
There is no doubt that Starbucks needs an overarching brand to tie all of its product categories and businesses together. But it also needs to establish clear branding for each of its new verticals, starting by preserving the integrity of its core business: Starbucks Coffee.
To that end, here’s what Starbucks should do:
1. Leave the Starbucks Coffee logo alone for now. It’s fine. People love it and it isn’t in need of an update just yet. This will no longer be Starbucks’ corporate logo. It will only apply to its coffee business.
2. Use the new logo, albeit a little more anchored (is it too much to ask for just one little ring around the siren? Really?) for Starbucks, Inc. Starbucks can print that sucker on socks, bottles of wine, candy bars, music CDs and toilet paper all day long. By doing this, Starbucks Coffee and Starbucks’ other business ventures can be separate.
That seems to be a much better way of going about it, but who knows, maybe we could start a word-of-mouth movement for Starbucks to try to convince the majority of people begging Starbucks Coffee execs to keep their logo alone that they are wrong. That is something Spike would know something about.
Cheers, Holly. Thanks for the comment.
Oh my gosh, the 50th anniversary rendition has become Edward Munch’s “The Scream”. What a scream!
Good catch. 😀 I see it too now.
This blog posting should actually be a chapter in the next generation of marketing books for new students of the trade.
At the end of the day the cup with the new logo just looks cheap. More like a 99cent cup of coffee than a $4.99 experience.
Bingo.
The logo may look fine on a business card, but it weakens the panache of the cup of coffee, which is a huge problem.
My next book will be partly about Starbucks and this topic, BTW. 😉
I don’t like the new logo not one bit!!!! I seen nothing wrong with the old one 😦
There’s a lot of that going around, Nancy.
Not that it’s a bad corporate logo… It just isn’t strong enough for Starbucks’ coffee business, given the power of the Starbucks brand today.
Cheers.
I hope they change their minds and keep the current logo. This particular logo on this particular white cup has become an icon – immortalized in the haute fashion (film) world of ‘The Devil Wears Prada’, not to mention in the hands of Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen – those twin arbiters of all things cool – and basically every other celeb. Who knew that a coffee cup could become so fashionable?
Ordinary people like me appreciate this association. I have no idea why but it just makes that cup and the Starbucks experience all the more desirable. Since it’s pricey, I have it as a special treat, not as an unconscious daily habit – I actually look forward to having that cup in my hands, along with the coffee itself… though, with respect to the environment, maybe I’ll just buy a ceramic version of this iconic white cup and that’ll be the end of that.
Point is: it took decades for the brand to achieve this status and for the logo to become so easily recognizable and so desired… it’s a puzzle why they would even want to change it.
Logos evolve. I have no problem with that, actually. The questions are whether or not they have a reason to, and whether or not the logo evolution makes sense.
If Starbucks wants to change its logo this year, that’s fine. My issue is that what they are proposing doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. The new logo creates confusion in the market, I think, and is more of a distillation than an evolution.
This logo seems better suited for a corporate entity than for the coffee business. See my next two posts to see what I mean.
Cheers.
…??!!…
The new logo does not dilute the brand. According to Howard Schultz’s explanation of the evolution of the logo to match the evolution of the brand, it works, since the company is changing.
@clweinfeld
I love this post! Cannot agree more. Good luck Starbucks!
Great post!
By the way – about the Starbucks logo redesigns..:
BMW would look like crash test sign, but in blue 🙂
Obama is actually a possible redesign after 2 more campaigns
VW is simple enough, so doubt they’ll change it for another 50 years.
The FR needs a new eagle and a new logo for sure…
You may find this Starbucks 2021 Logolift interesting: http://bit.ly/gj9YNL
🙂
wow this is so nice that a you want to close this post by turning to the future of 2021 and ponder what Starbucks’ 50th anniversary logo will look like. Maybe something a little like this…
GAP logo is kinda plain and…………………………………….boring..Well, ever since then it was really a boring logo.
Diana M. Isaac
Long Island Veterinary Hospital