final thought on starbucks logo redesign

At the center of my rejection of Starbucks' logo change is the idea that the logo is ubiquitous enough to be a standalone identity. Were I to agree with Starbucks that they have worldwide brand identity, I would say, "Bravo. Job well done."

But, I think they're vastly overestimating how recognizable their logo actually is.

/end

who Is starbucks forgetting?

I feel like I may be belaboring the Starbucks logo issue a little (first three blog posts starting out are all dedicated to it), but it's such a dopey move...I...I just can't get it all out of my system in a single post.

Starbucks is the paradigm of what happens when you let hubris drive your marketing rather than data, or, heck, plain reason.

Starbucks decided its brand awareness, particularly its logo, was so pervasive in modern society that it could remove its name and product off the logo...letting the image alone serve as its brand identity.

Let's see who Starbucks completely forgot about in this move:

- People who have never heard of Starbucks.
- People who have heard of Starbucks, but never grabbed a cup.
- People who may have tried Starbucks, but aren't regular patrons.
- Patrons who are regulars, but never paid that much attention to the logo.

Who does Starbucks not forget about?

- People categorically obsessed with Starbucks (who probably like the new logo).

And, for all those tired people driving at night on the Interstate? They're probably going to Dunkin' Donuts because what the hell does a big green siren/mermaid tell me about that business? Nothing.

(posted from Starbucks)

the evolution of starbucks' brand identity

Hat tip to AdFreak via Twitter.

starbucks' logo wtf

Wendesday, Starbucks (NYSE: SBUX) released a new logo that strips the "Starbucks Coffee" copy off their iconic design.

"This new evolution of the logo does two things that are very important," says Starbucks CEO Howard Schulzt via a video posted to the company's website. "It embraces and respects our heritage and at the same time evolves us to a point where we feel it's more suitable to the future."

In the video announcement, Schultz alluded to Starbucks' intention to get into different markets. The new design will supposedly give the company more flexibility in branding, all the while maintaining its brand of being "the world's leading purveyor of the highest-quality coffee."

Good luck with that, Schultzy.

Yes, Starbucks is huge. And, yes, Starbucks has a very high brand recognition when the name is verbalized or written.

However, is the visual cue as potent? I'm saying no.

Only but the most coffee-crazed of consumers can really recall what the Starbucks logo looks like. It took me at least a year or two of drinking Starbucks coffee to really pick up that the logo featured a "siren." By removing the "Starbucks Coffee" lettering, Starbucks is essentially killing the most identifiable portion of its brand.

This is supposed to help them in expanding markets?

The Starbucks logo is iconic, but not easily recalled. And, recall will be even worse among new customers without the lettering.

However, that may be the least of Starbucks' worries.

This news about Starbucks wanting to line-extend itself into other markets should have investors worried. Their brand is about to roast.

Starbucks is coffee. Coffee, and coffee only. That is the word they own in consumers minds. By trying to expand beyond coffee, Starbucks is going to severely dilute the potency of their brand.

So, let's get this straight...

Starbucks unnecessarily changes their logo. Adding to that, they strip it of the strongest brand identity trait: the name and product. And, to make matters worse, it sounds like they're about to dilute their brand by line-extending themselves into other markets?

Sounds like a triple venti of branding fail to me.