Starbucks Passion

Starbucks new logo… I’m at a loss for words

So Starbucks is set to launch a new logo in commemoration of their 40^th anniversary sometime in March. When I heard the news I was eager to see what the geniuses at the corporate office came up with. Something with a 40 in it? The Siren with a new haircut? Larger font perhaps?

I had my guesses, just like everyone else did. And I was genuinely excited to see it for the first time.

I opened the video of Howard talking about the new logo, unveiling it for the first time.

Here’s A Look at the Future of Starbucks video if you haven’t seen it already.

… And there she was; the Siren, in all her glory. Well, maybe not all her glory. She was missing the black backdrop and the Starbucks Coffee writing above and below her. At first glance, I thought something was wrong. I thought the streamed video was experiencing some technical difficulties. Surely, they wouldn’t dare remove the “Starbucks Coffee” from the beloved Siren, or would they?

They would and yes, they did.

I was shocked. I didn’t mind the removal of the black backdrop, but taking away the Starbucks Coffee flat out left me speechless.

I’ll be honest, I’m not totally thrilled by the new logo – far from it actually.

I understand that this new logo allows Starbucks to move forward as a complete beverage and food brand. Sure, Starbucks doesn’t want to be confined to just coffee but their most admirable principles, at least to me, are now being affected - tradition and culture.

By tradition and culture I mean respecting the founding pillars that Starbucks was built upon – coffee and cafe-shop life. By removing the title, you somewhat strip Starbucks of its truest essence.

So then why did they do it? Why did they remove the title?

To me, it’s simple. Starbucks wants to grow and expand, just like any other corporation. Limiting the brand to the coffee title somewhat hinders that growth and expansion, at least in countries and places that aren’t inherently familiar with Starbucks. So by going with a sleek, recognizable image (Ms. Stand-Alone Siren) Starbucks creates an iconic symbol that can slowly penetrate the markets that haven’t either had an interest in coffee or knowledge of the fact that Starbucks Coffee does much more than coffee.

You see, it’s all about iconic symbolism; stripping away a title, which confines a brand to a single theme, grants the now stand-alone Siren the ability to represent the entire brand and all their offerings. The old title is somewhat confining to just a coffee company.

The Nike swoosh doesn’t explicitly say ‘Nike’ in any way, but with their brilliant branding over the years, you just know the two are connected. This relationship is the basis of semiotic theory.

Now that the new Starbucks logo doesn’t openly say Starbucks, the symbol stands in place of the brand; Siren is not anything but Starbucks anymore.

This is how brands grow and tap into new markets. Or, at the very least, strengthen their relationships with the market they already have. How does this relationship strengthening occur?

Here’s a stretch, but go with it. Starbucks customers who recognize Starbucks as ‘coffee first and other stuff second’, will now slowly, subconsciously, see Starbucks as Starbucks. Coffee isn’t first anymore. And what that does is it allows these customers to see Starbucks as much more than just a coffee shop. Now you can get many more products and treats; from ice cream to chips – it’s all there. These supplementary products aren’t second thoughts anymore. They deserve to be complemented by coffee and not necessarily the other way around anymore.

Here’s a made-up example to better illustrate where I’m coming from: 

At which sports store will you find better baseball bats? (same stores, different names)

A) Bob’s Soccer Shop

B) Bob’s Sporting Goods

C) Bob’s

Even though the three stores are the same, you subconsciously believe that B or C is the better option. You’ll ask yourself: “why would a soccer shop carry good baseball bats?” And that hurts Bob’s business because he’s missing out on the baseball market. So by dropping the Soccer and adding Sporting Goods he can expand his reach in the sporting world.

If you take it one step further and remove Sporting Goods, then you just have Bob’s. Now, Bob’s can sell anything (groceries, hardware, electronics, etc.) and you wouldn’t have any subconscious leanings as to the types of products he sells best.

Okay… I got way off topic there. But the example does kind of make sense. This example is similar to what Starbucks is doing. They don’t want to be known for just the best coffee (soccer); they want to be the best at all drinks and foods (sporting goods). I don’t think they’ll venture out into another field, like electronics or hardware. But perhaps a Siren clothing line would make sense down the road…. (I hope not.)

So….

From a marketing perspective, I love what Starbucks has done. It’s brilliant.

But from a purist and traditionalist perspective, I dislike the new logo.

I want Starbucks to stick with coffee and treat the other products and goods as complements and/or supplements. 

I’m scared that by moving too far away from coffee, they may forget the small, unique, warm cafes in Italy that first inspired Howard to create the Starbucks we know and love.

Simply put, the appeal of Starbucks lies in that Euro-like cafe culture, not in grocery store ice cream sales.

At least to me anyway… other brand evangelists will surely disagree with this.

But, either way, I’ll always love Starbucks

What do you think of the new logo? ….