New Starbucks Logo: A Bad Idea?

Yes. The new Starbucks logo, which drops the company name is a bad idea.

Dropping the "Starbucks" and the "Coffee" from their logo, and turning their symbolic mermaid into their well-known green coloring is not a strong enough change to create a usable "symbol only" corporate identity.

Chief executive Howard Schultz has the right idea about evolving the logo. His solution however shows some of the hubris that got the company into trouble a few years ago. If they want to evolve the name so the company can broaden its product line, they could have done so by dropping the word "coffee" from the Starbucks name.

Dropping the Starbucks name from their logo will only serve to confuse consumers who are not as familiar with the company and thus the target of a company trying to broaden its product line.

A corporate identity should follow a brand strategy, which should follow a business strategy. In this regard, Starbucks approached the identity change appropriately. Unfortunately, as many generals learn, the best strategy can go to hell quickly in battle. I think that is what happened here. Those who created the new corporate identity internally live and breathe the female siren symbol on a daily basis. So, in my opinion, there was no objectivity, no outside perspective on the decision to drop the name.

This symbol is not the Apple logo, which is an apple. It is not the golden arches of McDonalds. It is not the Nike, swoosh. All of these are very simple and clean symbols that evolved over time. The mermaid is a complex design and while most loyal customers will recognize this symbol as the coffee formerly known as Starbucks, it bucks the very strategy of why they needed to evolve the logo in the first place.

The only good thing coming out of this for Starbucks is the huge number of blogs and articles on the subject.

Contributed by: James Gregory, Corebrand

Sponsored By: The Brand Positioning Workshop

Comments

[Sean Maguire]

I couldn't disagree more. Starbucks has critical mass in the "coffee house" space and as opposed to the logo's original complexity, it has become a significantly cleaner and simpler mark.

In six months time the former logo will be out of site, out of mind and anyone interested in "coffee and...", will look for the building with the green lady.

[Grabbins]

Good article and nicely written but I disagree in a way.

I think the logo is a vast improvement and Starbucks are in a good position to take this brave move. As long as they use it wisely on shop signage and their product range then there's no reason why it shouldn't work.

Logos do obviously evolve such as the Nike 'swoosh' and the golden arches of McDonalds to the point where you don't need to spell out your name but I believe this is the right step to take to get amongst the big boy brands.

[Jay Kadrow]

NOW Starbucks is 100% the "MC DONALDS" of Coffee..

[Brian]

There's nothing "cleaner and simpler" about the new mark, as the first comment says. They removed the wrong part of it! I honestly couldn't have told you what was in the center of the Starbucks logo, but I definitely knew what the outer ring looked like! From my perspective, they've removed the only truly identifiable part of the logo and kept the part that previously blended into the background. Dumb move.

[Patti]

I totally agree. You failed to mention the 2nd largest issue with the logo: It looks utterly CHEAP! As with the proposed Gap logo a few months back, it's as if a child was messing with their parent's photoshop. It is horribly simple for a coffee house that prides itself on having invented the coffee house vibe with a high-end look and $5 coffee.

[Barrett Rossie]

A company/brand as pervasive as Starbuck's has lots of leeway to experiment. Kudos to them for moving forward. Even if they stumble, they'll learn and adjust. New Coke, anyone?

That said, Brian makes a good point. There's a lot of power and equity in the logo font. I would bet it won't disappear.

[Elialtman]

Hey, thanks for the post -- interesting reading.

One point I'd like to make:

"Dropping the Starbucks name from their logo will only serve to confuse consumers who are not as familiar with the company and thus the target of a company trying to broaden its product line."

I think starbucks target isn't people who are unfamiliar with the company. It seems like they're trying to engage with their existing customers in new ways (duetto, via, the interaction on their website).

Who isn't familiar with Starbucks? I never drink their coffee and still know them inside out. getting the >1% of America who isn't familiar with starbucks because they've been living under a mammoth boulder for the last 15 years seems like a lost cause.

[Jodi]

One glimpse at what the brand's users have been posting and tweeting over the last 24 hours should give the company serious pause. Users of this brand are not just loyal to SBUX, they feel like they own it -- and as owners, they are pissed. It will be interesting to see how the company manages the transition from here.

[JOHN]

Agreed.

I dont like the siren without the frame. Too complex.

[Paul Segreto]

So, in my ever-popular segment “Are You Kidding Me” on Franchise Today (airs on Blog Talk Radio), I addressed Starbucks new logo.

"Starbucks assembled the smartest people in the world in one room and after the brightest one of all noticed all the Apple logoed devices said hey let’s do that! And the new wordless, coffee-less Siren faced logo was born. Holy cow! Well, Franchise Today has written a letter to Starbucks asking three questions…

Dear Starbucks,

1. Saw your new logo...did anyone tell you about New Coke or The Gap?

2. Are we now supposed to refer to you as "The Coffee Formerly Known As Starbucks?

3. Coca-Cola thought your new logo idea was so good they're eliminating Coke and Coca-Cola from all their branding!

Are you kidding me!"

[Brad VanAuken]

One thing is certain – logo changes almost always elicit numerous strong reactions, which provides for lots of brand buzz, which isn’t that bad. And the stronger the brand, the stronger the reaction. Kudos for Starbucks.

I assume Starbucks tested the new logo design. When I was responsible for brand management at Hallmark and we were considering a new logo design, we tested each possible new logo option in three different ways compared to the current logo – we tested for (1) brand recognition, (2) brand recall and (3) the degree to which it elicited key brand associations. There are a variety of specific methodologies to test each of these. If the new logo tests superior to the current one on all of these, go for it.

I agree that removing the word “coffee” is the simplest way to enable Starbucks to have a broader meaning. And I agree that there is some recognition value to the series of concentric rings surrounding the Starbucks mermaid. However, I also think that, in general, the simpler a logo is the better. For established brands, people recognize shapes and symbols; they don’t really read the names. The simpler, bolder logo could prove to be more powerful than its previous iteration in the long run.

I enjoy reading how everyone is weighing in on this however I think the jury is always out on any new logo until after it has been in the market for awhile.

[Dave Morawski]

As a brand, if coffee is no longer their focus, what is?

[Emily]

@Paul Segreto
The key point I think you're missing in #3 is that the only logo to Coca-Cola IS a typeface. They don't have anything else. Removing the "words" would literally leave Coca-Cola with nothing. Starbucks has both an image AND words, which is markedly different.

Also, while the "new gap" was atrocious I don't feel that this starbucks change is even close.

Now, to people in general:
I have never noticed a logo downsize from a logo consisting of an image+words to simply words. Word logos in and of themselves are remarkably difficult to trademark unless the brand is gargantuan and the typeface is unique enough or altered enough. To shift to an image leaves the trademark door open and more accessible.

Now, I'm not necessarily sure that taking out "Starbucks" as well as "Coffee" was the way to go, but I don't have any qualms about this new logo. They spent time on it, and I can see the difference. It's certainly been handled with care.

Also...to John...
I'm not sure how removing elements causes a logo to become more complex. This boggles my mind.

And finally:
Every single logo change on every major brand since the beginning of time has, without fail, met with resistance simply because of brand loyalty and an aversion to change. That does not make the masses right. They do not necessarily know what constitutes good design! And more often than not, a good design will soon be assimilated and the people will forget.

Personally, I think this was a good move.

[Russell Heistuman]

Probably the biggest indication that the brand was ready for going "iconic" is the fact that it has caused so many blog articles to be written in such a short amount of time. Whoever might have possibly not known about Starbucks will now.

Major brands beware! Part of brand strategy will absolutely have to include Twitter effect and the influence of blogs to shape the discussion of any major brand re-design rollout a la the Gap. At least they did a better job than the Gap.

[Paul Segreto]

@Emily

Yes, you're correct about the Coca Cola logo. My initial thoughts were that I could look at a can or a banner, see the red background with the white wavy line across the bottom, and know it's Coke.

With respect to the new Starbucks logo, I guess only time will tell. I, for one, am doubtful the new logo will remain.

By the way, you do make some good, valid points!

[Jodi]

@Emily
While I agree with most of your comment, to say "this does not make the masses right" sounds dismissive of the brand's most important asset: its users. This doesn't mean brands should not evolve (albeit carefully!)-- but to suggest that a marketer/designer know what's "right" for a brand better than it's mass of users is foolhardy.

[Jodi]

Sorry, one more point:

Brad: Yes, one would assume this logo was researched, and perhaps positive global results neutralized and/or trumped US feedback --- however, I suspect Coke researched New Coke and The Gap tested their new logo, and well, that didn't exactly work out. Research is just a tool.

I'm curious how much negative reaction was expected by the company, and if what's happening is consistent with expectations.

Either way, they'll figure it out, that's why they're Starbucks.

[Jccarcamo]

I completely agree. I think there is a huge amount of equity in the name STARBUCKS, one that easily translates into their expansion plans. And while all of us marketers dream of having an iconic swoosh of our own, a simple examination of these long-standing symbols shows one common element: simplicity. Even Apple simplified.

[Perry C]

Take the new logo out of the context of the white paper cup and you have made a huge leap of faith that consumers will recognize this graphic. When you see it on a sign in front of its coffee shops, is the logo immediately recognized...probably by some but not likely by most. Save the name, loose the word "coffee" and you have a winner.

[Dan Martin]

Great comments that all reflect the power of the brand (Dunkin Donuts - an eastern and midwestern coffee powerhouse) has changed from time to time with little notice.

To these I would add that the new mark will be hard to protect due to its complexity. Few people will actually remember all of the details of the design.

Unlike the arches, swoosh, or apple, there's enough complexity in this design that pretenders can craft a similar complex image in a circle with a woman in the center and steal some of the Starbucks thunder. Might not even have to be green.

The simplicity of the apple, arches, and swoosh offer them some protection.

[Roberta Matuson]

I agree. They are certainly getting a lot of buzz from bloggers. However, this buzz will quickly fade away while they are left with their logo.

This looks to me like the story of the Emperor Has No Clothes. Someone has convinced Mr. Schultz to invest a lot of money for an image that looks and feels exactly like the one he started with.

Roberta Matuson
Author of Suddenly in Charge

[Gianluca]

I agree with the author, I think this move could be a bit risky: this is the right way to use a strong brand, not to strenghten a weak one. The Starbucks name and brand are very strong, but not enough to do that, in my opinion. The result could be harmful.

[twitter.com/DavidPylyp]

What folly and false pride; I would never have known the mermaid signified the Brand.

Having everyone carry your cup is great advertising but this is a total fail.

Lets add a humble thought; Tim Horton's in Canada is a largely understated underestimated company that does not have the same grandiose EGO branding dreams and does just fine.

Focus on your customer.

David Pylyp
Living in Toronto

[Ralph M.]

I enjoyed all the comments above. I thought I'd add a historical perspective since I'm older than the Internet. The simplest brand image I grew up with was Eastman Kodak's yellow background with red letters. The other "blast from the past" was the original symbol of Newport cigarettes was what is now known as the "swoosh" owned by Nike. Some people just don't use a symbol as well as others.

[Eyebrand]

One of the reasons Starbucks cited for making the change is their desire to make it easier to branch out into their other non-coffee products - like ice cream and teas to name two.

If that is the case, then leave the Starbucks name and drop the coffee. Kentucy Fried Chichen did this by changing to KFC when they wanted to minimize the "Fried" component of their name when the world was becoming more healthy.

Overall, I think the real reason behind the change is two-fold. One is the obvious consumer interaction and conversation that this change has caused. Just look at all the posts and tweets about this in the past week.

The second reason is Starbucks wants to play with the big brands. Apple. Nike. Pepsi. These brands are known simply by their logo. No company name is necessary.

The question is - Starbucks took a big hit in the brand department a couple years ago. Since Howard came back, while he has done a great job of turning around the company and cutting the fat (so to speak), the company is still dealing with the fact that McDonalds and others were allowed to gain a foothold in the market.

Starbucks needed to get back into the spotlight.

Kudos to the designers who were able to convince the boss that they should get a shot at fixing the company.