Starbucks drops name from logo
Share
Starbucks has dropped its name from its logo as the company prepares to expand its product range.
The Starbucks Coffee name that encircled the green mermaid has been replaced in favour of a larger image.
Howard Schultz, Starbucks’ chief executive, says the new logo “is more suitable” for the future of the business but still “embraces and respects” the company’s 40-year heritage.
“We’ve allowed [the siren] to come out of the circle in a way that I think gives us the freedom and flexibility to think beyond coffee,” he says.
The company has already moved away from its core coffee offering by introducing branded tea, smoothies and food. It has also launched a music arm releasing records by Paul McCartney and Bob Dylan.
The diversification has helped Starbucks reverse falling sales suffered during the worst of the global recession. An increase in customers and spend helped lift profit by 86% in three months to 3 October. Revenue increased 17%.
Starbucks’ name-less logo matches those of brands including Nike and Apple.
Readers' comments (10)
Agustin Beccar Varela | Thu, 6 Jan 2011 12:41 pm
The mermaid debacle teaches us a lesson, for all of us working in branding.
We often are so involved and close to the brands we work on that we assume that some elements of our branding are communicating things that are really not getting to the consumer.
The fact that Starbucks has decided to focus only on the mermaid to convey certain things, without the need to keep the black colour and its name, shows that they are clearly over estimating the power of the mermaid to tell the brand story.
Looking at the comments everywhere you can see consumers had no idea whatsover about what the mermaid means, or that it even existed!
Time to look at our logos, crests, taglines, etc and really think if they are actually telling as much as we think they are.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
L Hughes | Thu, 6 Jan 2011 1:15 pm
Starbucks has become a brand that carries kudos in today's society and is one of those brands that people want to be seen with and this is achieved through the branding, just look at how many Starbucks branded gifts were available this Christmas!
I appreciate they are diversifying but after so many years building Starbucks into the to-be-seen-with brand it is today, keep the name where it is. I think this is going to do more harm by alienating loyal customers who have a love affair with the image of the brand than it will to send a message of diversification to those who never bought into Starbucks when it was just a brand selling fancy coffee.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Thu, 6 Jan 2011 1:48 pm
The logo is way too complex an image to make the impact that the Nike and Apple logos do sans-text.
I advise a GAP style turn-around...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Thu, 6 Jan 2011 2:45 pm
Without "Starbucks" on the product how many people will mistake this for an un-branded product. Diversification is one thing but to remove an iconic part of your logo is another.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
rhiannon | Thu, 6 Jan 2011 4:15 pm
I think at first there will be a consumer backlash. But this is to be expected. It's almost slightly egotistical for a brand to assume they have such respect they can remove any reference to their name and be recognised for their image alone. However, their future success depends on how well they cope with the backlash and what they do pro-actively to build brand affection for their new symbol. I think people will not stop drinking Starbucks Coffee. They will then take that coffee, in its cup, with new branding out into the public, thereby helping the new image to gain recognition. Within one year, the Starbucks Christmas goodies will be out again, and by then, everyone will know the image well and no doubt still buy the products in droves.
In fact, Starbucks has made a smart move. It is very difficult to attempt product diversification, when part of your logo clearly states 'Coffee'. You could imagine it wouldn't quite work in the music industry. If you look at Virgin (Music, Mobile, Atlantic, Blue) and consider the product diversification they have achieved, you will understand where I am coming from.
Starbucks has a right to make this move. Many brands can only dream of being so well recognised that they can even contemplate such a decision. Let's see how it's going one year from now...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Thu, 6 Jan 2011 4:43 pm
There's just no point to dropping such an established brand name. Smacks of trying too hard and thinking your brand visual is more universally recognised than it actually is. Truth is it's lost on most without the name. For failed previous attempts read Prince (Squiggle?!!) and GAP...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
James Gregory | Thu, 6 Jan 2011 5:28 pm
The new Starbucks logo, which drops the company name is a bad idea.
Dropping the “Starbucks” and the “Coffee” from their logo, and turning their symbolic mermaid into their well-known green coloring is not a strong enough change to create a usable “symbol only” corporate identity.
Chief executive Howard Schultz has the right idea about evolving the logo. His solution however shows some of the hubris that got the company into trouble a few years ago. If they want to evolve the name so the company can broaden its product line, they could have done so by dropping the word “coffee” from the Starbucks name.
Dropping the Starbucks name from their logo will only serve to confuse consumers who are not as familiar with the company and thus the target of a company trying to broaden its product line.
A corporate identity should follow a brand strategy, which should follow a business strategy. In this regard, Starbucks approached the identity change appropriately. Unfortunately, as many generals learn, the best strategy can go to hell quickly in battle. I think that is what happened here. Those who created the new corporate identity internally live and breathe the female siren symbol on a daily basis. So, in my opinion, there was no objectivity, no outside perspective on the decision to drop the name.
This symbol is not the Apple logo, which is an apple. It is not the golden arches of McDonalds. It is not the Nike, swoosh. All of these are very simple and clean symbols that evolved over time. The mermaid is a complex design and while most loyal customers will recognize this symbol as the coffee formerly known as Starbucks, it bucks the very strategy of why they needed to evolve the logo in the first place.
The only good thing coming out of this for Starbucks is the huge number of blogs and articles on the subject.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
anton roberts | Mon, 10 Jan 2011 12:38 pm
sweet just what the music industry needs a coffee house selling cds.maybe hmv should start selling coffee! the world has gone mad.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sophie Morris | Thu, 13 Jan 2011 9:59 pm
Starbucks already sells juices, cakes, sandwiches, salads, music, sweets, coffee machines, tea, mugs, etc. We know this already, and having the word 'coffee' on the signage hasn't stopped us from buying these products. In fact, it's encouraged us.
Not only does Starbucks sell its own branded coffee mugs and makers but also Christmas decorations. People are so involved in this brand that they are willing to decorate their homes with it! So, why mess with that?
There is always an element of brand evolution, but cutting out the most iconic element and keeping the one that fewest people would recognise, seems an odd decision. If they wanted to aid extension to areas other than coffee, just drop the word 'coffee'.
Read more - http://sophiesmarketingblog.blogspot.com
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
New Brand Tribalism | Mon, 31 Jan 2011 1:00 pm
I wonder if removing the name Starbucks from the merchandise is the most important part of the evolution journey for Starbucks? I'd be fascinated to see what business impact it makes.
If nothing else changes in the business to make it "more suitable"does this logo change just become a case of polishing a turd?
Another thought that comes to mind is this- do consumers worry about the Carphone Warehouse name, has that hampered it's growth or evolution? And if you wonder what i'm on about, when was the last time you saw a carphone? Carphone Warehouse has managed to evolve and diversify even with a somewhat misleading name.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment