Starbucks is constantly changing their coffee packaging line to keep things fresh (pun intended?) However the changes are not drastic enough to confuse the consumer. Their design is highly illustrative which I’m sure appeals to all the designers out there. This illustrative style is carried out in the artwork they display on their store walls and the in store displays. – Niki Brown
In our next episode, we will look at how a company (like Starbucks) might want to manage its expansion into new product categories and business models, but today, let’s pull a quick little bit of conversation from our last post’s comments:
From Holly Hoffman:
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.
Good points from Holly. My response (edited and enhanced for clarity):
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.
(See? The whole global thing can be addressed in much more clever ways:)
What’s more likely is Starbucks wants to diversify and needs a mark that doesn’t tie it to just… coffee shops. Like this:
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.
The irony here lies in that Starbucks is already branding some of its new businesses outside of the “Starbucks Coffee” world. Its wine and beer experiment is called… wait… 15th Avenue Coffee & Tea. (Doh! Another coffee company!)
Okay, let’s try that again… Starbucks also has another business that has nothing to do with the Starbucks Coffee brand. What is it again? Ah yes:
Doh! Okay, I give up. Where Starbucks should be branding all of its coffee shops as Starbucks Coffee and its non-coffee stores as XYZ Music/wine/beer/smoothies/socks/candies/ice cream shoppe/mopeds, it seems to do the opposite: Every new coffee shop is branded something else, but Starbucks’ forays into new and exciting verticals seem doomed to be strapped onto the back of its coffee shops. What Starbucks needs to do is the exact opposite: Consolidate its coffee business under one Starbucks brand and create fresh new identities for its other business ventures.
Aside from the wine, the beer and the music, there’s always all of this stuff too:
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.
Cheers, Holly. Thanks for the comment.
* * *
All kidding aside, in Part 2, we will look at a simple way to put some order into all of this, the point being to outline how a company like Starbucks might organize its expansion without a) diluting its core brand, b) creating confusion for consumers, and c) spending more money than it has to.
All that talk about liberating this from that had me almost fearing a militarized Starbucks – that would be really bad. I don’t know if all those other Sbux products were real or Photoshopped, but suspect it highlights one of the issues here.
Starbucks does coffee. If they want to be some kind of fabulous lifestyle product for sycophants with discretionary income sufficient to spend $15 a day on an exceptional cup of joe and a mediocre something else somewhere between work and home, fine, but it seems to me they should keep their coffee brand strong and not dilute it to better accommodate new, fly-by-night initiatives.
Oh, and all of the product images are real. I swiped them off the interwebs. The bag though, must have been some kind of promo item.
Revisiting this post, I’m reminded of that scene in Spaceballs, where Yogurt shows off all the merchandising. “Where the real money from the picture is made!”
Starbucks the lunchbox!
Starbucks the flamethrower!
I am concerned about this as well. Starbucks pizza. Starbucks socks. Starbucks shampoo. (Though… coffee-scented shampoo could work.)
Your right Oliver,
The focus should be on the customer and not the logo. It is important and needs to be a cool design that everybody gets but it is secondary in my view
Why not put the resources into developing awesome products that people really want to buy and keep the Starbucks name.
That is why Nike are successful because they have fantastic products that people love and they constantly innovate in a cool way. They have cult status and they earned it.
I like the Starbucks Logo and I like SB as company. It hurts to see them appear to be getting this so wrong. Corporate Strategy 101 would call this “muddling through” or that is the impression that is being given.
I hope the corporate strategy guys are on point here and merely using this issue to raise brand awareness. They need to diversify because the competition is extensive in the European market at least.
They need to deliver stakeholder value and extend the brand. I know they have the resources to pull it off. I do not think they have iconic status yet or if their ready to drop the name completely, so lets hope they get this right.
I see increasingly brands using SM as a primary research testing lab. If that is the case well done. However if they really do not understand the points made in your post. There going to become a business school case study pretty quick for all the wrong reasons.
As a refugee from Seattle, I have a little soft spot in my head for the mermaid and all her little minions. And as a former retailer, I can’t count the number of competitors that I saw go down in flames when they took their core competency and added “…and…” to the end of the sign. It was rarely an indication that they had everything under control and were ready to branch out.
I’ve been hoping my favorite bean boys were truly on solid grounds and prepared to branch out (no, I’m not apologizing for ANY of these) but I’m beginning to think that’s not the case. Yeah, breakfast burgers were pretty stupid. Cups, grinders, even other coffee-related stuff like hypos and rubber hoses made sense.
But I have to say they seem to be thrashing like a croc that has Steve Irwin on his back lately, trying desperately to avoid that long slow ride in the pickup truck. And this latest design melt-down is only the last indication. Your arguments are quite sound, and I’m amazed that they went the direction they did.
I’m guessing it was more Howard Schultz than experienced Marketing Managers — or, if it was, somebody needs to get sent to the Omaha store.
This is a very thought provoking post. So many people will just see this design change as a circular crop. Which it is. But it’s not, and you clearly show this. Bravo, Olivier. (also the three of us turn 40 this year)
This is such a nice post. i was searching for it and find it here. Thanks for sharing. Thanks a lot.
Well i appreciate that column whatever has been written here definitely it is beneficial and gaining the knowledge.
Like this column.It is great piece of knowledge for me
Comments are closed.