New Starbucks Logo?

[DotNetWebs]

I just wondered what all the graphics, marketing and branding people think of the new Starbucks Logo:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12125440

Regards

Dotty

 

[Liybpg]

I have no marketing experience, but I think this is crazy! What are they going to do now, rebrand all stores, change all merchandise and packaging? How many tens of millions that's going to cost? Or are they going to leave coffee alone and use the new logo just for other stuff?

The new logo is not even that similar to the previous one, so for me its not instantly recognisable as starbucks.

I don't see a problem in going into different markets under starbucks coffee name. There is a popular chain of cafes in Australia (as I have heard) which is called 'Gloria Jeans Cafe'.

If they insist on marketing new products under a different logo, why not have 'spin off' - e.g. Starbucks Ice Cream, Starbucks Shoe Shine, Starbucks Vodka etc.

 

[DotNetWebs]

... its not instantly recognisable as starbucks....

That's what I was thinking - I personally don't think it works without the brand name on it.

Think of the other big coffee brands like Costa and Nero's they all have their name as part of the logo.

And, unlike the Costa Coffee Beans, the [Starbucks] symbol that is left is pretty meaningless.

Maybe it's a brave innovative new move - but I can't see it!

Regards

Dotty

 

[IanDade]

I personally don't think it works without the brand name on it.

I agree. If you had shown me just the new logo without any indication of who it was, i would not have known that logo was Starbucks.

They are a huge brand globally but take away the words and i doubt people will have a clue who the brand is just from the image.

 

[sellickbhoy]

I'm not a coffee drinker and don't think i've ever set foot in a "bucks"

this was the 1st time i've actually looked at the logo in any depth.

the old one was rubbish and so is this one - but this one is rubbish with no recognisable meaning. It could be a cartoon character, a norse myth, it could be used by any number of companies - but i don't think it is recognisable or memorable

and with no text to accompany it - i think they are losing th elink to their greatest asset - and that is their name - Starbucks.

Now, maybe i'mjust not that imaginative, but a coffee store (as it was originally) called starbucks, really should have a star intigrated into the logo somewhere.

and if they are gonna have ice cream, smoothies, vodka, teas all under teh starbucks name - butwithout the coffee on it, then you'd simply use the name starbucks, the "star" logo and drop the coffee.

doesn't sound creative but the horde that is the mas market don't handle radical changes well.

However, i'm sure Starbucks will manage just fine.

 

[MrMichael]

I would probably see it as a smart move. Visually I think the logos are similar in that the female representation forms the main part of both. As mentioned in the article, moving away from using 'coffee' in the title also makes sense if they are moving into other product ranges.

Also, considering they operate internationally, it makes sense in some ways not to have wording in the logo, because whilst many people would recognise 'Starbucks' without knowing English, I'm sure a certain proportion would not.

In time therefore, they should potentially benefit from having a non-word based logo.

 

[redtigerdesign]

I have no marketing experience, but I think this is crazy! What are they going to do now, rebrand all stores, change all merchandise and packaging? How many tens of millions that's going to cost?

Tens of millions which they have, and will be happily spending with design agencies and print companies the world over. How's this a bad thing!?

 

[redtigerdesign]

I'm not keen on the loss of the wording and the recolouring job, but if it's what their new direction requires then it's not a bad take - at least their not scrapping what awareness and heritage they have.

Some may think it's 'crazy' that they're considering diversifying into other products, but I believe Tesco got a similar reaction when they decided to go into financial products and start selling mobile phones...

 

[Liybpg]

Tens of millions which they have, and will be happily spending with design agencies and print companies the world over. How's this a bad thing!?

designer talking

 

[Liybpg]

I'm not keen on the loss of the wording and the recolouring job, but if it's what their new direction requires then it's not a bad take - at least their not scrapping what awareness and heritage they have.

Some may think it's 'crazy' that they're considering diversifying into other products, but I believe Tesco got a similar reaction when they decided to go into financial products and start selling mobile phones...

Diversifying is not considered crazy, change the logo in this way is crazy. For such a well known brand to change the logo quite dramatically seems like a sacrifice too much. It is good to go into new markets, but don't kill your existing business due to this.

 

[redtigerdesign]

Hey, if Starbucks need to spend a large amount on re-branding everything, I'm comfortable to help them with that

 

[RadiusBPO]

I love it, its modern and to me instantly recognisable as Starbucks. Does a logo need to say a company name and what they do? I thought we grew out of that?

 

[Liybpg]

what successful, world wide know logos don't have names on them? Nothing comes to mind

 

[RadiusBPO]

what successful, world wide know logos don't have names on them? Nothing comes to mind

Nike, Apple, Pepsi, Chanel, McDonald, Shell, Mercedes, Windows.....

 

[Liybpg]

Nike, Apple, Pepsi, Chanel, McDonald, Shell, Mercedes, Windows.....

I'll give you Apple and maybe Nike. The rest put the name of the company under the logo very frequently. Nike used to do it, no they have seem to almost dropped the word.

 

[RadiusBPO]

I'll give you Apple and maybe Nike. The rest put the name of the company under the logo very frequently. Nike used to do it, no they have seem to almost dropped the word.

How kind of you, I will gift myself the rest then. Words aren't required, you can look at any I mentioned and know who they are and they are instantly. MB only put their logo on their car and McDonald's only put their logo on their bags and cups.

I'm sure Starbucks aren't removing all mentions of Starbucks from their empire. It will still say Starbucks outside their shops.

 

[redtigerdesign]

Diversifying is not considered crazy, change the logo in this way is crazy. For such a well known brand to change the logo quite dramatically seems like a sacrifice too much.

I disagree - there's certainly a case for it not changing, however they're clearly trying to evolve their brand to a point where only an image is required. It's following the typical brand evolution/maturity of any superbrand and I'll doubt they'll confuse current and new customers with it.

Alex

 

[Liybpg]

see your points ^^, however it seems a very risky and expensive move without visible benefits.

 

[mike.davis]

An overpaid overpraised company director was probably sat in his office looking at falling figures and thinking of something to fix it, when a logo rebrand suddenly popped into his head. And as he has been so out of touch from the actual world of business and his own company while sat in his large office for so long, that he neglected to think of the ridiculous repercussions that changing a logo for a company that big and established would have.

Thats my theory anyway, seriously what positive effect could removing your own company name from your logo have? And having to rebrand every store, every piece of merchandise, stock etc. is just outrageous.

 

[RadiusBPO]

An overpaid overpraised company director was probably sat in his office looking at falling figures and thinking of something to fix it, when a logo rebrand suddenly popped into his head. And as he has been so out of touch from the actual world of business and his own company while sat in his large office for so long, that he neglected to think of the ridiculous repercussions that changing a logo for a company that big and established would have.

Thats my theory anyway, seriously what positive effect could removing your own company name from your logo have? And having to rebrand every store, every piece of merchandise, stock etc. is just outrageous.

Well the old logo is looking old, they want new customers and therefore have to adapt to the current trends. They also probably want to move into meal packages in other shops and having coffee within the logo may confuse potential customers.

They also need to refurb stores every few years, they need to replace broken plates and cups, napkins etc etc. Theses things are naturally replaced all the time anyway so changing a logo doesn't effect their costs. Their internal fixtures are replaced every so often anyway and in most places are just cardboard menus.

I don't think it will cost as much as you think and just as Apple removed 'computers' from their name, this allows further diversification from Starbucks to not only a coffee shop with some coffee being sold in supermarkets to a company that can not sell branded sandwiches, salads, smoothes etc.

 

[KidsBeeHappy]

Lordy, what a conversation And quite a bit of arrogance.

Presumabley, someone at Starbucks knows what they're doing, as they have a few branches, in a number of countries, as I understand it.

Maybe they've actually know what they're doing?

As I keep telling my 6 and 8 year old children - just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's wrong.....:|

The proof will be in the pudding, lets check back in 5 years time and find out whether or not it worked.

Getting the re-brand covered on BBC news probably falls into the the positive side.

Meantime, no doubt this thread will have the board of Starbucks tossing and turning all night long worrying about whether or not they did the right thing.

 

[RadiusBPO]

Lordy, what a conversation And quite a bit of arrogance.

Presumabley, someone at Starbucks knows what they're doing, as they have a few branches, in a number of countries, as I understand it.

Maybe they've actually know what they're doing?

As I keep telling my 6 and 8 year old children - just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's wrong.....:|

The proof will be in the pudding, lets check back in 5 years time and find out whether or not it worked.

Getting the re-brand covered on BBC news probably falls into the the positive side.

Meantime, no doubt this thread will have the board of Starbucks tossing and turning all night long worrying about whether or not they did the right thing.

Aren't forums for expressing and discussing opinions? :|

 

[mike.davis]

Lordy, what a conversation And quite a bit of arrogance.

Presumabley, someone at Starbucks knows what they're doing, as they have a few branches, in a number of countries, as I understand it.

Maybe they've actually know what they're doing?

As I keep telling my 6 and 8 year old children - just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's wrong.....:|

The proof will be in the pudding, lets check back in 5 years time and find out whether or not it worked.

Getting the re-brand covered on BBC news probably falls into the the positive side.

Meantime, no doubt this thread will have the board of Starbucks tossing and turning all night long worrying about whether or not they did the right thing.

I don't care if they did the right thing, my opinion has been expressed and that is that.

I can clearly see you are one of the people who believes big companies never get it wrong and always do the correct thing. Well from experience they do get things wrong surprisingly often, lets remember these are people making decisions here - and people make mistakes.

Of course people coming straight out of university and into a high levelled job in a company without ever actually experiencing business first hand or even more importantly understanding the business they have went into doesn't help. A good example of this was in the show "undercover boss" although very hollywoodized much like the apprentice, it was very clear that the people at the top of a lot of these companies had absolutely no idea how the company works, how the company runs, or even how to turn it around.

 

[papverpoppies]

Lordy, what a conversation And quite a bit of arrogance.

Presumabley, someone at Starbucks knows what they're doing, as they have a few branches, in a number of countries, as I understand it.

Maybe they've actually know what they're doing?

As I keep telling my 6 and 8 year old children - just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's wrong.....:|

The proof will be in the pudding, lets check back in 5 years time and find out whether or not it worked.

Getting the re-brand covered on BBC news probably falls into the the positive side.

Meantime, no doubt this thread will have the board of Starbucks tossing and turning all night long worrying about whether or not they did the right thing.

Fully agree, and have they not changed the logo at least 3 times in the past.

You would like to think that being the wealthy company they are, they have folks running it - who know what they are talking about.

Why are we getting so worked up - does anyone have shares in the company?

We are talking of a multi national company here - who I am sure will be able to brand and sell any new product very nicely - with or without their name on it.

Life evolves, why should a company logo not do like wise.

Poppy xx

 

[Liybpg]

As an experiment, cut the new logo out of the picture and show to your friends. Will they instantly recognise it? Will they need few seconds to think about it? Will they not recognise it at all?

It is just when you open the article, you can see the old logo next to the new one and obviously you start associating the old one with the new one. I wonder if people will recognise it just by looking at the new logo.

 

[KidsBeeHappy]

I don't care if they did the right thing, my opinion has been expressed and that is that.

I can clearly see you are one of the people who believes big companies never get it wrong and always do the correct thing. Well from experience they do get things wrong surprisingly often, lets remember these are people making decisions here - and people make mistakes.

Of course people coming straight out of university and into a high levelled job in a company without ever actually experiencing business first hand or even more importantly understanding the business they have went into doesn't help. A good example of this was in the show "undercover boss" although very hollywoodized much like the apprentice, it was very clear that the people at the top of a lot of these companies had absolutely no idea how the company works, how the company runs, or even how to turn it around.

Not at all. I used to have a Post Office when they went through all that Consignia gubbins. I think I had to buy three new signs for the priviledge.

What I'm saying is I do not believe that big companies get it right all the time.

But I do believe that a company that stands or falls based on its brand, its marketing and its positioning, offering a product that isn't unique and is replicated at least a dozen times in within 100metres of every location that they operate in, does take some some time and effort in researching, understanding and thinking through a rebranding exercise.

With boards, executives, non executives, shareholders, bankers and other vested parties all having a stake in the company.

And that this rebrand isn't simply the result of a single person sitting in an office having a slightly dippy moment.

It maybe wrong, but we'll have to wait and see. And that won't be determined by folk sitting here sla88ing it off, based on their personal emotions, it will be based on how the company implements it and rolls it forward and to how customers worldwide, across old products and new, react to it.

 

[papverpoppies]

As an experiment, cut the new logo out of the picture and show to your friends. Will they instantly recognise it? Will they need few seconds to think about it? Will they not recognise it at all?

It is just when you open the article, you can see the old logo next to the new one and obviously you start associating the old one with the new one. I wonder if people will recognise it just by looking at the new logo.

Do they need to?

I do not go into starbucks because I like the logo, I like their coffee.

Poppy xx

 

[KidsBeeHappy]

As an experiment, cut the new logo out of the picture and show to your friends. Will they instantly recognise it? Will they need few seconds to think about it? Will they not recognise it at all?

It is just when you open the article, you can see the old logo next to the new one and obviously you start associating the old one with the new one. I wonder if people will recognise it just by looking at the new logo.

Or cut the logo out, show it to your friends and ask them if it will stop them buying coffee at Starbucks?

No-one recognised the BP "flower" logo when they launched that.

 

[Liybpg]

Do they need to?

I do not go into starbucks because I like the logo, I like their coffee.

Poppy xx

so you are saying that brand doesn't matter and quality of coffee is what matters? I am 100% sure that you can find better quality coffee in nearby independent cafes.

Why do people buy coffee from Pret? Its disgusting. I think it is brand - what else?

 

[JamesHall174]

I am surprised this has prompted so much response!! It is interesting though. I think it is certainly a strange step, if someone had asked me to describe their logo before I looked at it today I wouldnt have had a clue what it was like but everyone knows Starbucks, interestingly I wouldnt have even known that the logo contained the word coffee! I think it is another example of a company being persuaded by very good advertising and marketing execs that they need to do something when simply replacing 'coffee' with 'ice cream', 'beer' etc on each product would have been far simpler.

 

[Liybpg]

Or cut the logo out, show it to your friends and ask them if it will stop them buying coffee at Starbucks?

No-one recognised the BP "flower" logo when they launched that.

BP is a mainly b2b company. Startbucks's brand has a lot more influence on their earnings.

All I'm saying is that the new logo doesn't look like a starbucks logo to me and chances are that other people think the same. If brand recognition will fall, less people will buy it.

 

[KidsBeeHappy]

The sheep factor, location, sufficient product, at an acceptable price, speed of service, shop environment, complimentary products,

Basically, whether you can get a good enough cup of coffee, at a good enough price, in a quick enough time, not standing/waiting in an uncomfortable situation, at the same time as you can get your sandwiches/duck wraps or sushi or whatever, without losing more than 10 minutes of your lunch break, and close enough to get it back to your office without it going cold or leaking all over you.

 

[KidsBeeHappy]

BP is a mainly b2b company. Startbucks's brand has a lot more influence on their earnings.

All I'm saying is that the new logo doesn't look like a starbucks logo to me and chances are that other people think the same. If brand recognition will fall, less people will buy it.

Erghhh??????

So, all those petrol stations???

Did you know that in Scotland its a virtual Shell/BP oligopoly?

 

[NextPoint]

I'm sure it's been said before, but the new logo sucks - as the Americans would say. If they are wanting to branch out into new products, they should just keep the existing logo and change the name - e.g. Starbucks Coffee, Starbucks Beer and Starbucks Ice Cream. That said, in my opinion selling coffee and beer just isn't compatible - can you imagine how pictures like these guys drinking Starbucks:

... would instantly make these types of people:

.. think twice about drinking at Starbucks? A lot of people (especially student types) drink at Starbucks because it's the trendy thing to do - being associated with alchohol(ics) could seriously backfire on the Starbucks brand.

Anyway, this logo change will probably end up like another GAP story and will be forgotten about next week.

 

[papverpoppies]

so you are saying that brand doesn't matter and quality of coffee is what matters? I am 100% sure that you can find better quality coffee in nearby independent cafes.

Why do people buy coffee from Pret? Its disgusting. I think it is brand - what else?

Its a combination, location, variety - ie choice, brand, yes that is in the mix, but it is far more complicated then just being a well known brand, the atmosphere within the shops, service, they all play their part.

Poppy xx

 

[Liybpg]

The sheep factor, location, sufficient product, at an acceptable price, speed of service, shop environment, complimentary products,

Basically, whether you can get a good enough cup of coffee, at a good enough price, in a quick enough time, not standing/waiting in an uncomfortable situation, at the same time as you can get your sandwiches/duck wraps or sushi or whatever, without losing more than 10 minutes of your lunch break, and close enough to get it back to your office without it going cold or leaking all over you.

so what's with all the queues in starbucks and half empty coffee shops (of not a bad quality) nearby? I'm not saying that the above doesn't matter, but I would say that starbucks' success is predomenantly due to excellent branding. Imagine if all the cafes lost the brand 'starbucks' and named the cafe themselves - would they still get the same number of customers? Maybe local ones won't change a great deal, but the ones with random drop in customers will, I'm sure, see a big drop.


I couldn't find BP revenue breakdown so cannot comment further.

 

[KidsBeeHappy]

so what's with all the queues in starbucks and half empty coffee shops (of not a bad quality) nearby? I'm not saying that the above doesn't matter, but I would say that starbucks' success is predomenantly due to excellent branding. Imagine if all the cafes lost the brand 'starbucks' and named the cafe themselves - would they still get the same number of customers? Maybe local ones won't change a great deal, but the ones with random drop in customers will, I'm sure, see a big drop.


I couldn't find BP revenue breakdown so cannot comment further.

That would be the Sheep factor. Never underestimate the Sheep factor.

 

[Liybpg]

That would be the Sheep factor. Never underestimate the Sheep factor.

completely agree, I am affected by this factor a lot. When I am not in a familiar area and I want a coffee, I will just drop to starbucks without thinking about where to get a coffee too much. I 100% realise that this is due to branding and there's nothing wrong with it, thats what people are like.

 

[vvaannmmaann]

They would be better spending their money on improving the brown swill they laughingly call coffee.Oh and staff training,especially at the store near to Hyde park Corner.

 

[Drpepper]

I'm going to hazard a guess that just maybe a company the size of Starbucks actually have a fair idea as to what they are doing.