Target Marketing

You will be automatically redirected to targetmarketingmag in 20 seconds.
Skip this advertisement.

Advertisement
Advertisement
 
 

Bored with Your Logo? Think Twice.

The Nike Swoosh Beats a Naked Mermaid Any Day

Vol. 7, Issue No. 1 | January 11, 2011 By Denny Hatch
10
Get the Flash Player to see this rotator.
 

IN THE NEWS

Starbucks’ New Logo
In March, Starbucks will celebrate their 40th anniversary with the launch of a new logo and identity. Howard Schultz says that new logo embraces and respects their identity plus evolves the company to a point that’s more suitable to the future. In this video, the CEO says that the logo at the core the same—the love of the coffee but by putting the Siren outside the original logo it allows the company to move beyond just being a purveyor of coffee.
—Starbucks Press Release
Jan. 5, 2011

When Peggy and I moved to Center City Philadelphia nearly 20 years ago, around the block from our 1817 row house was a typical, tacky pizza shop on the corner of Fourth St. and raffish South St. Every morning when I walked the dog in the area, discarded pizza crusts and paper waste were all over the sidewalk and in the gutter. The dog was in hog heaven; I found it disgusting.

Suddenly the pizza shop was replaced by Starbucks. I was thrilled. Good coffee and terrific snacks. The enthusiastic young baristas (clerks who make coffee) are up and at ‘em at 4:45 a.m. preparing for the 5:30 opening. And the place is always clean and tidy. For 16 years, Starbucks has been a great neighbor and presumably profitable.

Many years ago, Seattle direct marketing guru Bob Hacker took Peggy and me on a sightseeing tour of his city and we stopped for a requisite cuppa Joe at Starbucks’ first store at the Pike’s Place Market. I felt part of American corporate history.

In Madrid several years ago, I was delighted to spy the Starbucks logo just down the street where I could bring a couple of coffees back to the room well before our out-of-the-way hotel dining room opened for breakfast.

At the Starbucks down the street from our hotel in Geneva, two small coffees, two blueberry muffins and a small bottle of orange juice was a whopping US$27.50, but hey! the little muffins were loaded with juicy blueberries and it was all lots cheaper than the US$32 per person continental breakfast at the hotel.

In fact, just about anywhere in the world, Starbucks is a welcome sight.

Now suddenly Starbucks’ has decided to change its logo. It is deleting the word “STARBUCKS,” deleting the word “COFFEE” and being represented by a naked green cartoony mermaid with a Miss America tiara and two fish tails.

Will she become the Nike Swoosh of world-class coffee? I don’t think so.

“If it ain’t broke,” said Jimmy Carter’s budget guy Bert Lance, “don’t fix it.”

Good advice.

Starbucks on the Rocks
In 2000, after 18 years with Starbucks, CEO Howard Schultz stepped down as CEO and stayed on as chairman. At that time, Starbucks was opening seven new outlets a day with an eye toward 30,000 worldwide. Schultz spent much of his time engineering the expansion into brand extensions—books, CDs, motion picture production and a wide variety of snacks and meals.

Takeaways to Consider

  • With 50 years of direct marketing under my belt, I’ve seen a great many successful controls scrapped, simply because management and marketing were bored with them and an agency wanted to pick up some juicy additional billings. The same is true in the world of logos.
  • Always test—and back test—carefully away from a successful control before rolling out.
  • “Just as a nation's flag expresses the distinct identity of a country, so, too, a logo helps to establish the name and define the character of a corporation. Effective logos become synonymous with the organizations they portray. They are instantly recognized by millions of people, and help to identify their companies and convey a message about the brands for which they stand. Nike, McDonald's and Coca-Cola logos are some of the most globally recognized logos.”
    —Dinesh, Dinesh.com
  • “[A logo] should look just as good in 15-foot letters on top of company headquarters as it does one-sixteenth of an inch tall on company stationery.”
    Stephen Gilliatt, Managing Director NY, The Partners, Branding and Design
  • "Logos and branding are so important. In a big part of the world, people cannot read French or English—but are great in remembering signs."
    —Karl Lagerfeld, German Fashion Designer
  • “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
    Bert Lance
  • “If it ain’t broke, break it.”
    Michael Lee Aday (a.k.a. Meat Loaf)
  • When you walk into a dark room and get hit over the head with a two-by-four, it’s not a good idea to go back into that dark room.
  • Do not get so swept up in the excitement of the new venture that you cease concentrating on the core business and the core customers. As the late direct marketing guru Dick Benson put it, “Who’s looking after mama?”

 

Companies Mentioned:

10

COMMENTS

Click here to leave a comment...
Comment *
Most Recent Comments:
KEVIN NIELSEN - Posted on January 11, 2011
Nice article Denny, it will be fun to watch how Starbucks fares in coming months & years and if they ultimately rescind this logo decision.

I can add one that bugged me and followed the same path of senseless change. In the 80's when Honda launched their luxury line (Acura), I found myself the proud owner of the '87 Legend. What a marvelous automobile it was. IMHO the Legend name was on a path to memorable greatness, like what one thinks on hearing the name "Mustang".

Sadly, in about 1990 Honda did a model upgrade and replaced "Legend" with the numeric model number...uh, it was, ummm - honestly I can't remember - does anyone know?

I imagine Acura is still in production with many fine cars. Alas, instead of commuting in my late model Legend, I find myself tooling around in my second 4Runner.
Wash Phillips - Posted on January 11, 2011
Denny, dash likes/dislikes re: Starbucks. At issue is value of this logo change. You’ve nailed management ennui and agency glee at going for a new look.

Did you read (on links) that pumped-up Starbuck internal writing? Sounds like supporting a de facto decision. I.e., job maintenance.

And testing? Alas, focus groups often "lie" from poor questioning, from being good sports, from saying they’d buy X if sold (but not doing so when it is). Unintended falsehood is the placebo of consumer testing that’s never quite cranked into the focus models. And internal company focus groups?—don’t ask.

Graphic designers, loving the tiny and anti-“horsy” surely never liked the black elements and strong sans-serif titles—too unsophisticated (I.e. easy to read). Green as the present cliché’, the more green the better, somebody figured.

But eliminating the name because it seems American? Baloney. STARBUCKS + Norse siren strikes a rather mid-Atlantic look—if that matters. But globally STARBUCKS (with the name) says American culture on the hoof, and the world has bought into that. E.g., look at Asia’s contempo-emulation of things American, for one.

Has anyone noticed most world brands are in English? And the same “room to grow” was possible while keeping a world-accessible brand had they just integrated the STARBUCKS name with siren & black touches as the preferred graphics bible treatment and removed “COFFEE” signs only when needed—saving some major $$.

BTW, I don’t like hot drinks. I go for the Frappiccino. And the logo that worked.
Carolynn Van Namen - Posted on January 11, 2011
Thanks Denny for again shooting down the corporate pretensions of a grandiose and over-inflated company trying to inflict something new, clever and supposedly more engaging on its clients. I'm not a huge Starbucks fan and I also dislike the whole "Starbucks-speak" you need to invoke just to get a cup of coffee. And I don't like the mermaid. I don't get the mermaid. I think she's smarmy. Maybe she is appropriate after all....

Perhaps it is just the result of management boredom with the old logo. I will not pretend to grasp the back-room machinations that would lead a viable company with a recognized product to "re-invent" itself and come up with a new logo. As consumers, we are, at heart, creatures of habit who treasure the familiar, the known, the sacred. Why a well-established company would want to tinker with that relationship defies common sense (did they not learn anything from the great Coke/New Coke fiasco?).

They have lost their way. They are adrift in a sea of options and product line extensions. Come back, Starbucks. Return to your core business and celebrate your coffee. Dump the mermaid overboard and focus on who you are. Starbucks. Coffee. Period.



Richard Riccelli - Posted on January 11, 2011
Denny, I agree. Nice piece. Related article about Harvard Business Review’s venture into redesign... http://bit.ly/6PLkhk Isn’t the world’s leading business school supposed to know these lessons...teaching them instead of learning them? Notice when companies are starting out how their logos are loaded with information about their products and services, benefits and advantages. Morton’s Salt: "When it rains it pours." Pepsi: "Twice as Much for a Nickel" At the start their instinctive, striving goal is to communicate the essence of their company with pictures that tell stories and words that have meaning. COFFEE - TEA - SPICES But notice as some companies grow how they divest the literal meaning from their marques. (Noted exception while watching Oregon-Auburn game last night: "You’re in good hands with Allstate"-- with the hands logo ready to catch every field goal and point after touchdown. Brilliant). I think it’s time to worry (especially if I were an investor) when a company divests meaning from its marque. Starbucks would have done better to return to the original coffee colored logo and conducted a contest among their customers for the three words that best described Starbucks today. JUMPED - THE- SHARK?
Rik Shafer - Posted on January 11, 2011
Denny, Always love your stuff. But I am amazed that you actually can drink that bitter, burnt, overpriced crap that Fourbucks sells. I admit I'm a plebe--but Dunkin' Donuts coffee seems better and cheaper, and I don't have to say "grande" or whatever other annoying terms they expect me to use. But I agree with you on the logo thing, brand equity is expensive and should not be given up lightly. Rik Shafer
Chris Fitz - Posted on January 11, 2011
Not only is the logo change problematic from the standpoint of dropping core text content, but the proposed or actual new version is far less graphically compelling and far less content-related with the omission of any BLACK color. Hello, COFFEE! BLACK! In addition, while green is a sexy logo/brand color these days and everyone wants a piece of the earth-friendly action, with only white to contrast, it is alas WEAK! One very new consideration for logos in this era is how vital the favicon [DH-NOTE: a small computer icon that is used as a sign for your favorite websites] is now to the overall equation. Text-heavy logos are become obsolete because they don't display well on the 16x16 pixel favicon logo version displayed at the top of a tab on your web browser. This is especially the case with phone-based browser displays with even less room for "clutter." So i see a point in Starbucks simplifying, but offering a trimmed down version for various web-based renderings is still a real option. Mostly though, i can see no good reason whatsoever that black has been taken out of an otherwise very identifiable logo. It appears to me that the redesign firm omitted black as an excuse to get paid. Then again, why am i giving any advice to Starbucks, the sworn arch-enemy of independent coffee houses and local economies everywhere?
Dev. Kinney - Posted on January 11, 2011
Denny,
Can still remember the awe in our agency art department when we saw the newly designed Chase Manhattan logo. It was the golden age of Advertising and logos were a new discipline. I remember the comments when Coca-cola redesigned their logo to "Coke." Both companies still use their original logos, Chase always, Coke only in certain venues. Logos, I've come to discover, grow with the company. That is, the company is as or more important to the logo design than the logo design is to the company. A great company can make a design work, but a great logo cannot make a company work. --Dev.
Dennis Mason - Posted on January 11, 2011
Denny, I'm a long-time fan of yours, and am always interested in what you have to say, but this time I think you missed the mark. Let me start by saying that I regard most name and logo changes as a travesty and needless waste of shareholder money. Most well-positioned, successful companies already have a recognized logo.

The value of the Nike swoosh is that is works anywhere. It does not incorporate letters or symbols that connote a particular country or culture. No English, Arabic, or Chinese. I believe that Starbucks is trying to go to the same level. As the company tries to bring coffee to countries and cultures around the world, the words Starbucks and Coffee signal that this is a company that regards itself as American rather than of the world. The logo change is not dramatic, it just eliminates stereotyping language while retaining the basic visual.

I'm not sure the strategy will work, or that Starbucks will even be successful in bringing their coffee to the rest of the world, but if they are to do it, this may well be the way.
Ross Turney - Posted on January 11, 2011
I can’t believe they didn't do research on the new logo. I think they're losing something by dropping their name from the logo. Not that I care. I detest Starbucks and their sometimes-pretentious staff. If you don't use Starbucks-speak to place your order, you can get a double latte of condescending attitude. I don't need that when I'm ordering over priced coffee. There are plenty of other "upscale" coffee shops to go to other than Starbucks.
David Cowen - Posted on January 11, 2011
Hi Denny, For once, I don't think you were hard enough on your subject. It's just my opinion, but to me this redesigning of logos is a huge waste of time and money. Do they really think omitting the company name and their main product will increase sales? Did they figure out what it will cost to change the millions of signs that are affected? If I was a TarBites - I mean Starbucks stockholder, I'd be tempted to attend their next annual meeting and voice my displeasure. It's lunacy. Madness. Best regards, David
Click here to view archived comments...
Archived Comments:
KEVIN NIELSEN - Posted on January 11, 2011
Nice article Denny, it will be fun to watch how Starbucks fares in coming months & years and if they ultimately rescind this logo decision.

I can add one that bugged me and followed the same path of senseless change. In the 80's when Honda launched their luxury line (Acura), I found myself the proud owner of the '87 Legend. What a marvelous automobile it was. IMHO the Legend name was on a path to memorable greatness, like what one thinks on hearing the name "Mustang".

Sadly, in about 1990 Honda did a model upgrade and replaced "Legend" with the numeric model number...uh, it was, ummm - honestly I can't remember - does anyone know?

I imagine Acura is still in production with many fine cars. Alas, instead of commuting in my late model Legend, I find myself tooling around in my second 4Runner.
Wash Phillips - Posted on January 11, 2011
Denny, dash likes/dislikes re: Starbucks. At issue is value of this logo change. You’ve nailed management ennui and agency glee at going for a new look.

Did you read (on links) that pumped-up Starbuck internal writing? Sounds like supporting a de facto decision. I.e., job maintenance.

And testing? Alas, focus groups often "lie" from poor questioning, from being good sports, from saying they’d buy X if sold (but not doing so when it is). Unintended falsehood is the placebo of consumer testing that’s never quite cranked into the focus models. And internal company focus groups?—don’t ask.

Graphic designers, loving the tiny and anti-“horsy” surely never liked the black elements and strong sans-serif titles—too unsophisticated (I.e. easy to read). Green as the present cliché’, the more green the better, somebody figured.

But eliminating the name because it seems American? Baloney. STARBUCKS + Norse siren strikes a rather mid-Atlantic look—if that matters. But globally STARBUCKS (with the name) says American culture on the hoof, and the world has bought into that. E.g., look at Asia’s contempo-emulation of things American, for one.

Has anyone noticed most world brands are in English? And the same “room to grow” was possible while keeping a world-accessible brand had they just integrated the STARBUCKS name with siren & black touches as the preferred graphics bible treatment and removed “COFFEE” signs only when needed—saving some major $$.

BTW, I don’t like hot drinks. I go for the Frappiccino. And the logo that worked.
Carolynn Van Namen - Posted on January 11, 2011
Thanks Denny for again shooting down the corporate pretensions of a grandiose and over-inflated company trying to inflict something new, clever and supposedly more engaging on its clients. I'm not a huge Starbucks fan and I also dislike the whole "Starbucks-speak" you need to invoke just to get a cup of coffee. And I don't like the mermaid. I don't get the mermaid. I think she's smarmy. Maybe she is appropriate after all....

Perhaps it is just the result of management boredom with the old logo. I will not pretend to grasp the back-room machinations that would lead a viable company with a recognized product to "re-invent" itself and come up with a new logo. As consumers, we are, at heart, creatures of habit who treasure the familiar, the known, the sacred. Why a well-established company would want to tinker with that relationship defies common sense (did they not learn anything from the great Coke/New Coke fiasco?).

They have lost their way. They are adrift in a sea of options and product line extensions. Come back, Starbucks. Return to your core business and celebrate your coffee. Dump the mermaid overboard and focus on who you are. Starbucks. Coffee. Period.



Richard Riccelli - Posted on January 11, 2011
Denny, I agree. Nice piece. Related article about Harvard Business Review’s venture into redesign... http://bit.ly/6PLkhk Isn’t the world’s leading business school supposed to know these lessons...teaching them instead of learning them? Notice when companies are starting out how their logos are loaded with information about their products and services, benefits and advantages. Morton’s Salt: "When it rains it pours." Pepsi: "Twice as Much for a Nickel" At the start their instinctive, striving goal is to communicate the essence of their company with pictures that tell stories and words that have meaning. COFFEE - TEA - SPICES But notice as some companies grow how they divest the literal meaning from their marques. (Noted exception while watching Oregon-Auburn game last night: "You’re in good hands with Allstate"-- with the hands logo ready to catch every field goal and point after touchdown. Brilliant). I think it’s time to worry (especially if I were an investor) when a company divests meaning from its marque. Starbucks would have done better to return to the original coffee colored logo and conducted a contest among their customers for the three words that best described Starbucks today. JUMPED - THE- SHARK?
Rik Shafer - Posted on January 11, 2011
Denny, Always love your stuff. But I am amazed that you actually can drink that bitter, burnt, overpriced crap that Fourbucks sells. I admit I'm a plebe--but Dunkin' Donuts coffee seems better and cheaper, and I don't have to say "grande" or whatever other annoying terms they expect me to use. But I agree with you on the logo thing, brand equity is expensive and should not be given up lightly. Rik Shafer
Chris Fitz - Posted on January 11, 2011
Not only is the logo change problematic from the standpoint of dropping core text content, but the proposed or actual new version is far less graphically compelling and far less content-related with the omission of any BLACK color. Hello, COFFEE! BLACK! In addition, while green is a sexy logo/brand color these days and everyone wants a piece of the earth-friendly action, with only white to contrast, it is alas WEAK! One very new consideration for logos in this era is how vital the favicon [DH-NOTE: a small computer icon that is used as a sign for your favorite websites] is now to the overall equation. Text-heavy logos are become obsolete because they don't display well on the 16x16 pixel favicon logo version displayed at the top of a tab on your web browser. This is especially the case with phone-based browser displays with even less room for "clutter." So i see a point in Starbucks simplifying, but offering a trimmed down version for various web-based renderings is still a real option. Mostly though, i can see no good reason whatsoever that black has been taken out of an otherwise very identifiable logo. It appears to me that the redesign firm omitted black as an excuse to get paid. Then again, why am i giving any advice to Starbucks, the sworn arch-enemy of independent coffee houses and local economies everywhere?
Dev. Kinney - Posted on January 11, 2011
Denny,
Can still remember the awe in our agency art department when we saw the newly designed Chase Manhattan logo. It was the golden age of Advertising and logos were a new discipline. I remember the comments when Coca-cola redesigned their logo to "Coke." Both companies still use their original logos, Chase always, Coke only in certain venues. Logos, I've come to discover, grow with the company. That is, the company is as or more important to the logo design than the logo design is to the company. A great company can make a design work, but a great logo cannot make a company work. --Dev.
Dennis Mason - Posted on January 11, 2011
Denny, I'm a long-time fan of yours, and am always interested in what you have to say, but this time I think you missed the mark. Let me start by saying that I regard most name and logo changes as a travesty and needless waste of shareholder money. Most well-positioned, successful companies already have a recognized logo.

The value of the Nike swoosh is that is works anywhere. It does not incorporate letters or symbols that connote a particular country or culture. No English, Arabic, or Chinese. I believe that Starbucks is trying to go to the same level. As the company tries to bring coffee to countries and cultures around the world, the words Starbucks and Coffee signal that this is a company that regards itself as American rather than of the world. The logo change is not dramatic, it just eliminates stereotyping language while retaining the basic visual.

I'm not sure the strategy will work, or that Starbucks will even be successful in bringing their coffee to the rest of the world, but if they are to do it, this may well be the way.
Ross Turney - Posted on January 11, 2011
I can’t believe they didn't do research on the new logo. I think they're losing something by dropping their name from the logo. Not that I care. I detest Starbucks and their sometimes-pretentious staff. If you don't use Starbucks-speak to place your order, you can get a double latte of condescending attitude. I don't need that when I'm ordering over priced coffee. There are plenty of other "upscale" coffee shops to go to other than Starbucks.
David Cowen - Posted on January 11, 2011
Hi Denny, For once, I don't think you were hard enough on your subject. It's just my opinion, but to me this redesigning of logos is a huge waste of time and money. Do they really think omitting the company name and their main product will increase sales? Did they figure out what it will cost to change the millions of signs that are affected? If I was a TarBites - I mean Starbucks stockholder, I'd be tempted to attend their next annual meeting and voice my displeasure. It's lunacy. Madness. Best regards, David