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

[timage]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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: http://twitpic.com/3o6b2p

Starbucks designers got it right.

[Pepita]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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

[Eab0909]

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]

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]

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]

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.