avatar_48x48
Contact BSI
Derrick Daye
888.706.5489 Email us
Brand Identity Derrick Daye

New Starbucks Logo: A Bad Idea?

by

480_d90e4a46265b4a3f949382332ba907d0

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 ByThe Brand Positioning Workshop

Recommend this story

Subscribe, Follow and Stay Connected to BSI

Submit

46 Comments

Sean Maguire on January 06th, 2011 said

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 on January 06th, 2011 said

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 on January 06th, 2011 said

NOW Starbucks is 100% the “MC DONALDS” of Coffee..

Brian on January 06th, 2011 said

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 on January 06th, 2011 said

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 on January 06th, 2011 said

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 on January 06th, 2011 said

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 on January 06th, 2011 said

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 on January 06th, 2011 said

Agreed.

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

Paul Segreto on January 06th, 2011 said

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 on January 06th, 2011 said

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 on January 06th, 2011 said

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

Emily on January 06th, 2011 said

@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 on January 06th, 2011 said

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 on January 06th, 2011 said

@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 on January 06th, 2011 said

@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 on January 06th, 2011 said

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 on January 07th, 2011 said

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 on January 07th, 2011 said

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 on January 07th, 2011 said

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 on January 07th, 2011 said

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 on January 07th, 2011 said

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 on January 07th, 2011 said

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. on January 07th, 2011 said

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 on January 07th, 2011 said

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.

timage on January 07th, 2011 said

I’m a longtime fan and consumer of Starbucks coffee. Whenever I see the logo, I start to salivate and am willing to walk through a maze to get a cup of coffee. I know the Starbucks mark when I see it – but when I see it…I see “Starbucks Coffee.”

It wasn’t until I sat down and really looked at the logo that I recognized the mermaidish siren.

All that to say, I think Starbucks will have to do some work for those who aren’t as familiar with the brand to identify the simplified mark for what it is.

My wish is that they’d simplify the prices as well as the promotion.

Rebecca Bogen Smith on January 07th, 2011 said

I applaude Starbucks for addressing logo change as a tactic aligned to their business strategy to expand beyond coffee. I also agree with many of you that in that evolution the first step may have been simply to remove “coffee” from the logo. How will consumers talk about these new categories without the Starbucks name? Anyone recall the artist formerly known as Prince?

Carole on January 07th, 2011 said

It’s a 40-year-old company, and I had never noticed that what was inside the green circle was a mermaid. I agree, they dropped the wrong component in their logo; eliminating the word ‘coffee’ would have been a much better option. The mermaid means absolutely nothing to me; the green circle with white lettering was instantly recognizable. When a company’s logo has achieved that kind of recognition, the logic of walking away from it is questionable.

Dr. Darren Coleman
Twitter:
on January 07th, 2011 said

Starbucks Coffee. Still a bit of a branding mug?

Starbucks has decided to modify aspects of its visual identity (name / logo) and in-store brand experience. The name Starbuck’s Coffee has been dropped to leave the current logo of a siren (errr, that’s just a mermaid to you and me). The famous Starbucks mugs are to be replaced by bone China no less. Starbucks made these changes because Starbucks it wants to expand its brand’s presence in groceries (where it already sells tea and ice creams) whilst responding to increasingly sophisticated coffee consumers and stiff high street competition.

Wavelength’s view? From a visual side this branding heavy weight may have taken three steps one once. Removing the name, the word coffee and the logo. Bad move. If the brand wants to spread its brand wings beyond coffee removing the word “coffee” from the name / logo makes sense. Not many people say I’ll have a Starbuck’s coffee now. The word coffee is redundant and in Starbuck’s case is strategically restrictive.

Two issues are of note……

First, why remove the name Starbucks? The brand equity surrounding this name is huge ($3,339m according to Interbrand’s 2010 survey). Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Second, when you look at the logo can you honestly say that you ever paid any attention to it? Probably not. Closer inspection of the logo begs the question “what does it mean?” Strong logos are metaphors for meaning. They convey a concept, promise or deeper meaning and ‘work’ for the brand in this way. Citi bank and the umbrella indicating protection is a classic example. I do wander what the Starbuck’s Siren is intended to signify. Now the text has gone the logo will have to work harder to convey the brand concept. Much harder. We wonder if it works at all. Starbucks should have phased out the word ‘coffee’, established the brand and its name in new markets using its current visual identity. It is debatable if the name Starbucks should ever be phased out given its equity. It if is this still leaves the problem of a logo which appears to have very little metaphorical meaning. It leaves me thinking. What’s the brand concept and how does this logo convey that. Answer. Don’t know.

However, it’s not all doom and gloom. Starbuck’s clearly understands the role of other tangible cues as a part of delivering its brand experience. This is why it’s phasing out the mugs. Yes, they may remove themselves from that homely feel so cleverly created by the sofas, papers and scrumptious cakes. If they want to go slightly up market I suspect similarly conspicuous changes will happen in their outlets. Modifications to art, menu and music may all be examples of how the brand experience is taken up market.

Final comment. The re-appointed Starbuck’s CEO, Donald Shultz says this is a “meaningful update”. I just wonder if it’s an exercise in explicit management control.
Lets watch this space and hope Starbuck’s isn’t another Gap waiting to happen. It may mean the Starbucks mugs can still be found elsewhere.

Edard James on January 07th, 2011 said

It is a modern and smart move. I think they have reached the TOMA top of mind ads with their presence and now it just sinks in with the customers and opens up newer horizontal and vertical moves.

Neil Hopkins
Twitter:
on January 08th, 2011 said

I’m not a core Starbuck’s user, so consider myself an interested outsider in the debate.

Point one is that I wouldn’t have recognised the mermaid. In fact, I didn’t until I started reading the articles a few days ago.

Point two: On the Starbucks corporate site, the ‘Senior Creative Manager’ blogged earlier than Schultz. Surely the CEO should have the first word?

Point three: the company is totally silent in the social space – even on their own blog where a lone barista is holding up the debate.

Point four: We’re being treated to a ‘preview’ of the new logo. Not the final thing. And certainly something that isn’t being claimed to be finished…

I’m sorry but all of the above points to a massive snarl-up in the brand’s strategy and suggests to me that Starbucks are doing a Gap…

Neil

jen on January 08th, 2011 said

I think it’s all ego. Sorry they are known for “coffee” and have that market and should be proud of that. They are (MO) taking a hit on the history of the place and going for more profit. And as much as they won’t admit it…they are a huge big business – you know those evil kind that make profit and give people jobs.

They had the market on coffee – I think that is sliding. You can only keep your prices high for so long.

They have reached the line of “ego” over product. Starbucks might be “known” by current fans – but “Going to get Coffee at the Siren Chic Place” just does not have the same sound.

They lost some people when prices went up – they will continue that loss because people don’t want a “chain store that sells coffee” they want a coffee shop that they can sit at and drink coffee – without all the other crap. Which is why having them in Targets etc…was a good idea. Expanding possible food service etc just means higher cost and well…they already have prices that hit the high mark.

Willpay on January 10th, 2011 said

Any change in the current economy is not going to sit well with consumers. People crave the status quo. That said, The new Starbucks logo works because it’s a true evolution not a thoughtless departure, going wordless makes it global and more than just about coffee, and it just looks good. Compare the SBUX upgrade to recent other coffee companies that missed the mark: link to twitpic.com

Starbucks designers got it right.

Pepita on January 10th, 2011 said

I totally agree with the article. I think that in quite a few national markets Starbucks isn’t as well established as it is in its homemarket. I think that in the Netherlands Starbucks maybe has 10 shops of which 4 are on the national airport.

So I don’t think Starbucks has the reach yet to make such a move.

Reallycricket on January 10th, 2011 said

Starbucks made the leap to universal brand. Apple’s former logo was a rainbow apple with the words “Apple Computer” written below. The words Starbucks and coffee are unnecessary at this point.

New Coke was a product launch. Gap logo still incorporated the “GAP” name and added a new component, the bizarre blue gradient square, rather than remove a part of their established logo. Neither action is applicable in this instance to how Starbucks has proceeded.

Starbucks has evolved into a big brand and is acting like a big brand. It is nice to see a logo-change as well-executed. On the bright side, there will be an opportunity in a couple of months to market the “classic” Starbucks logo again in their merchandise.

Fan of the new logo. Onward, upward.

Brian on January 11th, 2011 said

I have designed a few logos in my day, and I always recommend that the “icon” (graphic) portion of the logo should ideally be able to stand alone, apart from the text of the name. But in order to do so, the icon must be separable and easily distinguishable apart from the name. The text in the old Starbucks logo was too tightly integrated to be able to separate the logo and still have it be identifiable. That’s the problem here.

If Starbucks wants to “play with the big brands” that are known only by the iconic portion of their logo (e.g., Apple, Nike, McDonald’s), then that’s admirable. But as others here have noted, that works best with a SIMPLE logo icon. This complex mermaid design is way too complex and seemingly irrelevant to coffee (or any other product they might choose to sell). Seems like a classic case of those inside the company being too close to the brand to realize that nobody else is really all that familiar with the mermaid.

Brad S. on January 11th, 2011 said

I have always found that you need a reason to change a logo. It’s expensive and confusing for a while, and changing out nearly 17,000 stores will take some time and $$$.

The only time I advocate changing a logo is to signify a significant strategic change in the company. In this case, they are justified, as they are trying to get into other foodservice areas. But to me, the change is a little too dramatic – Starbucks is and always will be a coffee place. Embrace it and sell off of it, but don’t ignore it.

I think they’ve gone a little too far with this version. But then again, I’m not a Starbucks customer, so my opinion is not as important as the person who buys 2 a day. Change it, yes, but don’t forget what got you to the party in the first place.

Marino Fadda on January 12th, 2011 said

I totally agree. Especially:
“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”;

“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”.

Matthew Palmer on January 13th, 2011 said

A brand with integrity! Bux reinforced their lack of commitment to a good cup of coffee by removing the word “coffee” from their logo. Starbucks provides the experience and specialty drinks first – they don’t care if you like their coffee.

Jason Lim on January 14th, 2011 said

This is definitely an interesting topic, with lots of interesting comments. I have to side with the author, though: this doesn’t look like a good idea.

The mere fact that they’re moving away from “Starbuck’s Coffee” is a risky move. They were known as THE coffee shop. That was their position. What’s their position now?

Will they go down like Dell (formerly known as Dell Computer, Inc)?

http://www.brandingstrategyinsider.com/2009/08/building-a-brand-vs-building-a-business-.html

Of course, only time will tell who’s right. The market will decide, not the marketers. :)

Marty A. on January 17th, 2011 said

I am a loyal and long-standing customer of Starbucks and engaged in a visual field and yet I never noticed that the center of the logo had a mermaid in it. The enclosing band and the name is the stronger identity of the original logo. I would not now see a mermaid and immediately identify it with Starbucks. Evolving a logo is one thing and a normal thing, but they lost some key graphic continuity. The mermaid is not enough.

Joe Fanelli on January 21st, 2011 said

Wow… It’s like the Chevy logo with half the chevron or Ford with just the oval. The revised logo almost gives me a new age Shirley MacLaine, I should be drinking this over crystals in Sedona feel. (Or at Seaworld!) There’s no tried and true cup of Joe feel in it without the ring and the Starbuck’s font …The siren is now a spirit without a soul surrounding it, but what’s in a name? Have we become so totally visual? Joe Fanelli

ElizB on March 11th, 2011 said

I go to Starbucks every morning – the green banner and Starbucks font are instantly recognizable to me. I look for that signage in unfamiliar parts of the city of Chicago when I’m looking for a coffee – on the corners where I’d expect a Starbucks to be. I didn’t even know there was a siren in the middle of the logo (I seriously doubt I could have identified it if it were in any color other than Starbucks green).

I agree with an evolution toward simplicity, but why not keep the green circle banner (even drop the word coffee, if you want), and ditch the siren? Put a coffee sleeve on that cup and you’re not even going to see her.

As I tweeted yesterday, the potential loss of brand equity is concerning. I guess we’ll see…

Dakshayani on April 27th, 2011 said

Starbucks is first known for its Coffee. Expansion may make removal of Coffee from the logo ok, but why do away with ‘Starbucks’? there may be brands with simply logos and no words, but every brand has its own history and DNA.
Starbucks should have first removed the ‘Coffee’ alone!

Abhishek Kohli on August 25th, 2011 said

First of all, this is not a new logo, but a variation of the older version. The decision to revamp the logo should be based on reasons and research. There could be two reasons. 1) The changing generations are not identifying the brand. 2) Starbucks’ foray into new market/segments.

Changing times could lead to change in the logo. But it does not look like a change, as per the demand of the future customers. The essence of a coffee shop around the world is the heritage attached to them. The feelings of home, leisure, weekend and a comforting cup of coffee they provide to the guests is their biggest USP.

People don’t go to Starbucks just to BUY a cup of coffee, but they go their to “HAVE” a ‘great’ coffee in ‘great’ environment.

Changing the logo could inflict a feeling of ‘drifting from the elements attached to it’, in customers’ minds.

Starbucks could have stayed with the word Starbucks, which adds a bit of heritage, and makes their case of “we don’t change”, stronger. “Our coffee and coffee shops would provide the same comfort as they have always provided.”

I agree with the author that they could have just removed the the word ‘coffee’, instead of removing the name Starbucks. Starbucks is going to a new market, India, which has players like Cafe coffee day, who have grown to 1000+ locations in 15 years. Starbucks would have to establish the brand strongly. It is a nightmare for an int’l brand, when they go into a new market, where people are not able to recognize them. Looking at starbucks, one can say that they would be using the same new logo in India also, to have the consistent identity all over the world. Without the word Starbucks in its brand communications logo, its case would be weaker in India.

And maybe, its part of a bigger brand strategy, to give a makeover, starting from the little modifications. But right now, it has gained a bigger attention, against the brand managers feelings of passing the eyes unnoticed!

Tim on December 20th, 2011 said

This is an improvement. The name Starbucks and coffee are still in the signage. That is something that was not pointed out. Plus, once inside a Starbucks, the branding is everywhere. They simply evolved the logo and split it from the circle, which had been stolen, parodied and overused by the world.

Leave a Reply

Submit your comment

More posts in Brand Identity Derrick Daye

New Starbucks Logo: A Bad Idea?

Understanding Consumer Identity

Measuring The Strength Of Brand Identity