Can Starbucks' mermaid make a splash?
Share
Starbucks has followed the likes of McDonalds, Nike and Apple and removed its brand name from its logo. But is setting the Starbucks siren free the right thing to do?
By disengaging the name from the logo, Starbucks obviously feels that its visual identity has the strength to stand alone.
Observers suggest that customers recognise and feel affinity to the Starbucks name rather than the mermaid character within it and some have questioned why it is part of the coffee chain’s logo at all.
Logo changes don’t often sit well with the consumer, as Gap found out to its detriment last November.
The US clothing brand found itself amid a PR disaster when it changed its logo on its website and met a backlash of consumer complaints.
Gap made a U-turn and reinstated its original logo just days after the change, but not before doing its reputation further damage through some poorly executed dabbling in social media and crowd sourcing.
Starbucks is attracting a similar backlash with fans on its Facebook page leaving negative feedback. Fans have warned that it is making the same mistake and should learn from Gap’s experiences.
CEO Howard Schultz hints that removing the Starbucks Coffee name from the logo allows it to diversify and expand its product range.
It has already had some success in diversification by introducing branded smoothies and food as well as its own branded instant coffee Via which is available in supermarkets. Starbucks has also tried its arm in the music industry releasing records by Paul McCartney and Bob Dylan.
The new Starbucks logo doesn’t come into effect until the spring, which means that by then, consumers may have gotten used to the new look, but brands with iconic visual identities must be careful of straying too far from what makes it iconic to consumers in the first place.
Readers' comments (4)
Justin Bradfield | Fri, 7 Jan 2011 12:09 pm
Or maybe its just a marketing ploy to get the world's media talking about Starbucks...job done.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Fri, 7 Jan 2011 12:52 pm
I think it is faintly absurd to equate what Starbucks are planning with what Gap tried to do - one is just an evolution allowing the business to move into new sectors, whilst the other was a complete revolution that seemed to be based on nothing more than a whim.
I'm not sure of the relevance of the siren, but it is clearly well established as part of the visual identity of Starbucks and I don't really see what all the fuss is about.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ivan | Fri, 7 Jan 2011 1:59 pm
It's just a media hype exercise! I believe their plans are to reignite dialogues among the media sectors. This creates more brand presence on online media, blogs, social media, prints.... etc
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:00 pm
Sam Barton
Cultural Insight, Added Value
Unlike Gap (which lost visual equity), the Starbucks example focuses crucially, if not bravely, on a brave and characterful element – the mermaid.
In the brand personality world of archetypes, Starbucks is defined as an explorer brand symbolized by the mermaid. So, from a semiotic perspective, Starbucks are showing their commitment to their role as an explorer – which is perfect for leaving their comfort zone and expanding their offer.
The Mermaid was always a curiously archaic part of their logo (charmingly so) and thus to keep hold of it in this act of ‘modernisation’ is an interesting and I would say brave choice. It is recognizable but does not share the simple “logo” quality of things like apple or even Mickey Mouse.
They retain a level of character as an explorer; of myth and intrigue.
They become modern without becoming anonymous, minimal without becoming indistinct.
The logo is simplified without losing character and visual equity; a perfect tool to expand away from coffee etc… freed somewhat from the perceived brand history without losing its personality.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment