New year, new logo. That seems to be the thinking at Starbucks, as the coffee chain, this week, unveiled a more laconic logo. With the Gap debacle fresh in our minds, we asked our employees to voice their varied opinions on the new look.

“I thought they did a nice job letting their loyal customers/card holders get a sneak peak with an email that went out yesterday, including a message from Howard Schultz. There was a link to a website with a video and images of what the new logo would be.”

“I like the logo. It reminds me of what Target and Nike both did at some point in their brand evolution; they removed the brand name from the logo and just left the visual component.”

“I like the new logo – it shows its evolution, but maintains its roots/heritage, unlike what Gap attempted to do and ultimately failed at.”

“I get the need to move their logo beyond coffee, but I think the redesigned logo misses the mark and strays too far to retain its status as an iconic image.”

“All I can think of is how many millions of dollars it takes to remove the company name and the word ‘coffee’ from a logo and turn it Starbucks green? How many focus groups were there? How many hours did it take? There is really nothing new about it. Just another layer of deconstruction of something that already exists, which is basically the evolutionary path of almost every other major brand's logo from McDonald’s to Nike over the past century.”

“For me (focus group of one) it was not the [siren] that made the Starbucks logo recognizable - it was more the Starbucks typeface that I associated with. I don't think I am alone on that either. Thus, I think its decision to focus on the [siren] misses the mark of where its brand equity lies.”

“What about Seattle's Best's bold logo change in May 2010, which absolutely impacted Starbucks, and likely encouraged more brand change? I think Seattle's Best's logo was the bigger miss between the two companies – at least Starbucks' logo is still recognizable – while I appreciate the ‘fueling up’ humor to coffee and gasoline, I think its [Seattle’s Best] new logo teeters too much on the literal side.”

“I tend to think Starbucks should have considered the mantra, ‘If it ain't broke, don't fix it.’ Then again, the University of Oregon football team has essentially built its brand image on inconsistency, of all things. The Ducks are known for constantly changing uniforms, rarely sporting the same design/color on consecutive Saturdays - and, it seems to be working for this brand.”

“It's not a big enough change to turn me off, but it makes me scratch my head.”

“I find it ironic that Starbucks associates the new logo with extending a ‘siren's call,’ when the purpose of the sirens was to draw sailors to their doom!”

“I am not a big fan of changing logos for the sake of change. I think it is almost always a vain exercise of little importance. I never even noticed or thought about what was inside the circle, so to me Starbucks was a green and black circle. However, I don't hate this and I do see how the iconic image without words gives a brand much more flexibility and global play, so I can accept it.”


These previous comments reflect the opinions of individuals and are not necessarily representative of Cone’s point of view.

Comments

Arcadia	January 12, 2011 4:53 AM It`s a nice logo, shame that has not yet appeared yet in Romania. I hope to appear in the next period.
Eddie	January 26, 2011 11:26 AM I'm pretty sure Starbucks has the recognition to sell coffee if they jut used a green and white cup.

Name *

Website

Comment *