Starbucks Rebrands -- Or Unbrands -- Itself
Diane Ellis, Ed. ·
Jan 6, 2011 at 2:49pm
Another data point to add to our ongoing discussion about branding and brand loyalty.
In a bold move, Starbucks announced Wednesday it's stripping its name from the company logo. While the mythical green mermaid will remain on storefronts and cups, gone will be the "Starbucks Coffee" label. The decision comes amid the chain's expansion into food products and grocery distribution. "Even though we have been, and always will be, a coffee company and retailer, it's possible we'll have other products with our name on it and no coffee in it," Chief Executive Howard Schultz said.
Good idea? Bad idea? And what does it all mean?
- Comment (16)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: Starbucks Rebrands -- Or Unbrands -- Itself
There's no reason for the company name to be in such a universally-recognized logo.
On a related note, one of the most beautiful corporate logos in American history, the Procter & Gamble Man in the Moon, disappeared from their products a few years ago because of a strange smear campaign by evangelical Christians who claimed it was a demonic symbol -- there were curls in his beard that made the sign '666,' they said, and the number of stars in the background was somehow also suspect.
Jul '10
Re: Starbucks Rebrands -- Or Unbrands -- Itself
You are missing one.
Seattle's Best Coffee is also a Starbucks Brand.
(have the jpg but cannot embed it.)
Aug '10
Re: Starbucks Rebrands -- Or Unbrands -- Itself
If they abandoned that logo, I'm sure it had squat to do with that rumor. The 666 was supposedly in the pattern of the stars, but the Big Dipper looks more like a bear than the stars in that logo looked like 666.
SBC always sucked compared to Starbucks. Why bother buying the competition unless you're either going to close it down or improve it?
Aug '10
Re: Starbucks Rebrands -- Or Unbrands -- Itself
I've noticed a lot of company names that sound like possessives but are spelled without an apostrophe, Starbucks being one of them. Is that becoming a quasi-accepted part of English grammar, when dealing with proper nouns?
On the other hand, there's a popular clothing brand that calls itself Lands' End. Whassup withat?
Dec '10
Re: Starbucks Rebrands -- Or Unbrands -- Itself
Paul DeRocco
If they abandoned that logo, I'm sure it had squat to do with that rumor. The 666 was supposedly in the pattern of the stars, but the Big Dipper looks more like a bear than the stars in that logo looked like 666. · Jan 6 at 3:52pm
Paul, P&G was a client of mine in the early 1980s and they were fighting even then to quash the rumor. They shared with me examples of the chain letters that were circulating about their "demonic" logo and the boycott it inspired, pointing to the "6's" in the beard curls.
And yes, when they finally pulled the logo off their products, it was in order to cut their losses from that boycott campaign.
Dec '10
Re: Starbucks Rebrands -- Or Unbrands -- Itself
Here ya go:
Lands' End got its start in 1963 when Gary Comer, a successful advertising copywriter with Young & Rubicam, who had long pursued a love of sailing in his spare time, decided to pursue his long-standing dream of opening his own business. Comer quit his job of ten years, and with $30,000 in initial funds started a company that made sails and sold other marine hardware...
In 1964, Comer produced a catalog offering Lands' End's goods through the mail. The first booklet, entitled "The Racing Sailors' Equipment Guide," was printed in black-and-white, had 84 pages, and featured a variety of technical-looking sailing implements on its cover. A printer's error, however, resulted in the company's name being rendered "Lands' End," with the apostrophe in the wrong place. Since Comer couldn't afford to have the piece reprinted, he decided to simply change the name of the business to correspond with the brochure.
Jul '10
Re: Starbucks Rebrands -- Or Unbrands -- Itself
I'm trying to remember when was the last time I bought something because they changed their label..... nothing comes to mind.
Jun '10
Re: Starbucks Rebrands -- Or Unbrands -- Itself
They may not say it, but I suspect the main purpose is to deemphasize nationality. Coffee without borders....
Jul '10
Re: Starbucks Rebrands -- Or Unbrands -- Itself
If they were serious, then they would go with no label.
Re: Starbucks Rebrands -- Or Unbrands -- Itself
etoiledunord: They may not say it, but I suspect the main purpose is to deemphasize nationality. Coffee without borders.... · Jan 6 at 4:52pm
This sounds plausible. Some have argued that this could be a move to make the brand look less chain-like as well.
Jun '10
Re: Starbucks Rebrands -- Or Unbrands -- Itself
Gaea ascendant. Maybe.
Jul '10
Re: Starbucks Rebrands -- Or Unbrands -- Itself
I think it is an elegant 'solution' to broadening their product reach beyond coffee and is an improved design which was always pretty 'busy'... black center graphic-white ring-large green ring with name split and two stars- white ring (negative space)- small green ring... that's a lot of design. Apple surely improved from the bite apple rainbow logo and they dropped their name and Nike has done a beautiful job with the swoosh alone. All of these also play internationally without 'saying' a thing.
I do brand design and simplicity and visual recognition is paramount, then comes, hopefully, customer ownership. Not to brag but to explain; I created and drew the Cold Stone Creamery ice cream cone logo and over time it is hoped that it comes to represent a customers 'experience' and relationship with a brand because fonts can't do that. We use type in every possible way but a picture really is worth a thousand words, and if we're really lucky it's the customers 'words', who and what they associate with and relate to or ultimate payoff... love. Starbucks did a beautiful job.
Dec '10
Re: Starbucks Rebrands -- Or Unbrands -- Itself
IMHO, who cares? This company has been going down fast, most notably with an increased incidence of coffee grounds in the bottom of my cup! Keurig is now my oh-so-affordable replacement!
Jun '10
Re: Starbucks Rebrands -- Or Unbrands -- Itself
Agreed, and great job on the CSC logo. I'm a sucker for good design, and yours makes me happy.
I don't care what anybody says, I love Starbucks. I drink black coffee, and $1.50 for their product is an excellent value. Fair/free trade, though almost a cliche, wouldn't even be part of the conversation these days if it weren't for Starbucks, either, and they brought that about for a reason that all conservatives should applaud: the profit motive.
Sep '10
Re: Starbucks Rebrands -- Or Unbrands -- Itself
Just to stir the pot, I'm assuming the because Schultz is Jewish he isn't concerned about the mermaid's non-appeal to strict Islamic countries and that playing it up means he's comfortable getting that Gaia/pagan goddess/earther vibe going a little more strongly without the words messing it up.
If the mermaid ever gets the full burka, I'll be worried.
Dec '10
Re: Starbucks Rebrands -- Or Unbrands -- Itself
I'm not a fan of the new logo. Not sure why, but it doesn't look 'finished' to me. Perhaps I miss the border.
I wonder why the belly button went away between logos some time ago.