Starbucks says the new wordless logo is better suited to the company's expansion beyond coffee into a wider array of business lines and into more international markets. "What is really important here is an evolutionary refinement of the logo, which is a mirror image of the strategy," says Howard Schultz. "This is not just, let's wake up one day and change our logo." ||
Read "Starbucks gives logo a new look" ||
"Looking forward to Starbucks' next chapter" || Jump to
the second page of comments.
not a fan without the missing letters. yes, the mermaid logo is ubiquitous, but the letters define SB to me.
Posted by: Jeff | January 05, 2011 at 01:21 PM
Had a feeling this would come. Though I thought it would've happened back when we were peddling books, cd's and dvd's.
Posted by: fun n' foamy | January 05, 2011 at 01:41 PM
So is this the big Wed. announcement? WTF? Oh how happy (sarcasm)
Posted by: WTFSBUX | January 05, 2011 at 01:48 PM
What's in it for me?
Posted by: xwhipGBL | January 05, 2011 at 01:52 PM
And we all get a copy of howards new book...how thrilling
Posted by: baroosta | January 05, 2011 at 02:18 PM
Stupid is as stupid does. The new logo looks just like a gazillion rip-offs of the old logo. It was the words that made the old logo a true Starbucks logo. Of course, I go to Starbucks so infrequently these days - got just too tired of baristas shoving Via in my face - that it probably doesn't really matter what I think since I'm just a customer and not a stockholder who should be pissed about a colossal waste of money fixing something that wasn't broken.
Posted by: Noah | January 05, 2011 at 02:25 PM
"The brand is now evolving to a point where the coffee association is too confining and restrictive," said John Quelch, a marketing professor at Harvard Business School. "Starbucks is fundamentally selling an experience, but by no means is coffee the only part of the experience. It is important that they not have a logo that is too confining."
Lol. Yes, since they've given up paying attention to their core product (coffee) a long time ago, they should get into something else next, like: Starbucks Waterpark (tm), Revenge of the Siren (sm). Ugh.
Posted by: BusyBean | January 05, 2011 at 02:30 PM
Hey, at least it's not another addition to LEAN. Thanks Howard!
Anyhow, considering how much money Starbucks already wastes on other silly things, this is probably just a drop in the bucket. Initially you'll only see the new logo on cups, which doesn't likely cost anything extra versus printing the old cups (since that's all computerized these days). Signs and aprons and packaging will be a much slower rollout. Many stores don't even have a logo sign, just the lettering on the facade.
I personally like the clean cups. Less words all over them. Very refreshing after those hideous holiday cups.
Posted by: erstwhile | January 05, 2011 at 02:34 PM
I think I see a trend here, looking at all the different logos from beginning to the latest one.
1971: Starbucks: coffee tea spices
1987: Starbucks Coffee
2011: Starbucks
2025: Bucks
:)
Posted by: BusyBean | January 05, 2011 at 02:49 PM
I don't like.
I like change, I don't like this.
"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.
SOOOOO counter to what we were trying to say last year...back to our roots, back to coffee! coffee coffee, focus on bold, coffee is our core. hahahahaaa
Posted by: hipsterdufus | January 05, 2011 at 02:52 PM
At least it is not a completely new (unrecognizable) logo.
I'm split on the design. But I think we'll eventually get used to it.
Posted by: StarbucksCustomer | January 05, 2011 at 03:08 PM
I'm an art director. From a production standpoint, they just made it a one color logo, which will indeed save them a lot of money.
From a design standpoint, I guess I'm kid of neutral on this. I like typography and and clear identity, so removing the company name is a negative. I like clean, recognizable logos, and in this age of the iPhone, icons are becoming just as important as logos. The mermaid is iconic, so that works.
Yeah... Neutral.
Posted by: Crateish | January 05, 2011 at 03:10 PM
I like how Howard kicked out Jim Donald because he wasn't focused on coffee enough. They even closed stores to draw attention to their focus on coffee excellence. Now a few years down the road Howard even erases the word Coffee from his brand. When someone asked me the other day if I would consider working at Starbucks again anytime soon I almost spit out my coffee. It was just too far fetched for me to even think about it. The Starbucks I used to work at is dead. Said. But on the upside, it saves me a ton of money. :-)
Posted by: me myself and I | January 05, 2011 at 03:34 PM
Spell-checking might help... I meant "Sad". not "Said"
Posted by: me myself and I | January 05, 2011 at 03:35 PM
This ranks up there with some of the biggest marketing insanities, ever! It is right up there with New Coke. Did someone forget to tell Starbuck's marketing chief that its log is probably among the top ten worldwide!!!!! Incredibly misguided. Sets a new gold standard in terms of the dumbest marketing move by a formerly very marketing-savvy organization. Please tell me this is a joke? Thoughts?
Posted by: Java Joe | January 05, 2011 at 04:01 PM
"We are very lucky to have our own in-house creative team". I was thinking about the New Coke thing as well.
Posted by: javagirl666 | January 05, 2011 at 04:32 PM
Apparently Starbucks learned nothing from Gap's disastrous logo-change attempt, what, two months ago?
Posted by: marketing monkey | January 05, 2011 at 04:38 PM
overreact much?
Posted by: slaw275 | January 05, 2011 at 04:42 PM
Obviously, some of us don't actually remember the New Coke fiasco. Coke changed the drink not just the design on the can. People were angry about the change in the drink formulation.
I don't mind the logo. Of course, I'm just a customer. It's not like I'm important or anything.
Posted by: Invader Zim | January 05, 2011 at 04:47 PM
I don't like it either. I like the old logo and it has nothing to do with not liking change. It just looks off to me. Cheap. Down-graded.
Posted by: jenniferbarista's | January 05, 2011 at 04:51 PM
I hate the new logo redesign.
Removing "STARBUCKS COFFEE" is a huge mistake. The font / lettering is so iconic, messing with it puts the brand recognizability at risk. Is this change only going to be for the cups? Please don't tell me all the outdoor store signage is going with this redesign also.
But Starbucks has surely invested a lot of time and money into this change. Barring plenty of public distaste, it's probably not going to change back, which is unfortunate.
Posted by: STV | January 05, 2011 at 04:53 PM
I don't like the new logo. It does nothing to enhance Starbucks as far as I am concerned as a customer.
Posted by: Nandypants | January 05, 2011 at 05:34 PM
logo-big deal.
Not about the coffee as per howard-big deal.
Posted by: lame | January 05, 2011 at 05:41 PM
*logo NO big deal
Posted by: lame | January 05, 2011 at 05:42 PM
When I asked where I work, I always respond with, "Starbucks." Not "Starbucks Coffee". I like the new logo but wish they had kept the words. Doesn't really matter...
Posted by: spence | January 05, 2011 at 06:10 PM
The name "Starbucks" is still on the back of the cup, adjacent to the customization boxes, or whatever they are officially called in Starbuckese.
Posted by: NCNyrk | January 05, 2011 at 06:21 PM
The logo looks incomplete without the lettering. Boo, Howard.
Posted by: baristamclane | January 05, 2011 at 07:26 PM
Yuck, I don't like the new version at all. Much prefer it with the font around it. It's a bit bland now. Also, I only am interested in Sbux because of the coffee, not all this other tacked-on crap.
Posted by: yeah, I said decaf | January 05, 2011 at 07:40 PM
People will probably go into the stores and be too busy noticing the new logo and won't even notice how the prices (probably) have gone up a dime or two...
Posted by: Sheik | January 05, 2011 at 07:49 PM
has anyone tasted that healthy coffee, the latays are to die for. http://healthyliving101.organogold.com/
Posted by: OrganoGold11 | January 05, 2011 at 07:58 PM
Its looks incomplete like it needs st least a black border around it, you dont mess with perfection and if a dime was spent on this I think is a dime wasted better use would have been raises or labor.
Posted by: Red cup | January 05, 2011 at 08:06 PM
The new logo actually is one of those mezmarizing pictures...if you stare at it for a minute it says BUY VIA...heheh
Posted by: Coffee Soldier | January 05, 2011 at 09:03 PM
The only thing that I like about it, is that it is green. But seriously, just looks like someone got bored and didn't know what the hell to do with the logo.. It's going to cost an arm and a leg and not to mention loss of an identity. Well I mean the written part defined it, and not everyone will know that it's Starbucks.. Let them keep it the way it is now I say.
Posted by: Welshy | January 05, 2011 at 09:26 PM
First the new SBC logo and now this?
Starbucks, come on. I'm ashamed. This seems unnecessary and it's almost as if they're saying, "We make more money doing VIA and cute mugs so we're just going to forget that core product thing. What's that stuff even called, anyway?"
Just wow.
Interesting.
Posted by: Alexander | January 05, 2011 at 09:59 PM
Does anyone have any additional information/quick summary about the Starbucks University thing? I only caught the tail end of that portion of the presentation.
Posted by: Doppio Con Karma | January 05, 2011 at 10:40 PM
Gosh! It looks like a knock-off. This and the new treinta cups are starting to make me feel embarassed to be a partner...
Posted by: Partner | January 05, 2011 at 11:00 PM
Who is the knuckle-head that came up with this idea? Anyone at corporate ever hear of branding? What is this "new" logo supposed to represent? Moby Dick Publishing house?
Posted by: The Wicked Slice | January 05, 2011 at 11:32 PM
why change?why,Howie?are you nuts?
Posted by: former barista | January 05, 2011 at 11:36 PM
This was obviously a good use of the money we as workers make for the company. I for one am glad that Howard Schultz gets to bloviate on stage about this lime-green eyesore for an hour. He and the rest of the executive cadre truly deserve their extremely large compensation packages for coming up with such brilliant ideas as this one.
I mean, really folks, you are surprised that they are moving away from coffee (or if you want to make me use corporate doublespeak, 'diversifying the brand') despite what Uncle Howard said when he came back? To get to that kind of level in business, I'm pretty sure you have to be a pathological liar with virtually no moral compass, so I can't say I'm surprised that ol' Howie is saying one thing and doing the exact opposite.
Posted by: James Connolly | January 05, 2011 at 11:36 PM
This is getting a bit of airplay in Australia.
Though we lost a few stores with the reduction in stores worldwide.
http://bit.ly/fCZ7jq
Posted by: Oz Starbucks Fan | January 05, 2011 at 11:37 PM
Now, now just surrender to the insanity and while you're at it pls sell to the customer in the cafe, no, no, not the non-existant coffee grinders or coffee makers but that $39.99 hot water heater, uh I mean, instant VIA brew machine.
And while you're at it be sure to hoard every last bit of Sbux Coffee logo materials you can to sell on Ebay in the future...it will compensate for the loss of Bean Stock value.
Posted by: livin' la VIA loca | January 05, 2011 at 11:51 PM
Over-thought postmodern crap.
Posted by: frappuccinist | January 05, 2011 at 11:58 PM
@frappucinist You mean someone put thought in to that logo? How?
Posted by: Alexander | January 06, 2011 at 12:12 AM
I've seen the "new" logo before . . . when we received a batch of misprinted cups because the printing machine was running out of ink. I don't like.
Posted by: licensedstorepartner | January 06, 2011 at 01:20 AM
@livin' la VIA loca, good call. This change in logo just made my old aprons worth more than the $4.95 I'd have to pay back to Starbucks when I finally quit...
Posted by: baristamclane | January 06, 2011 at 01:21 AM
lmao @ licensedstorepartner.
So true.
Posted by: Hipsterdufus | January 06, 2011 at 05:49 AM
I don't mind it, but I also don't care. I'm a patron, not an employee.
To me, it's trying to appeal to the Whole Foods shopping, yoga doing, Prius driving new age hipsters. All green, as if to say "We're green!" Despite the fact that they won't reuse my cup when giving me a refill.
I imagine it's saving them money in ink, that's probably the motivator.
Posted by: AB | January 06, 2011 at 05:59 AM
lol @ licensed store partner!
Posted by: Sheik | January 06, 2011 at 06:26 AM
"To get to that kind of level in business, I'm pretty sure you have to be a pathological liar with virtually no moral compass"
That's a pretty strong reaction to something as simple as a logo change, which, as we all know, Starbucks has done more a than once over the course of the company's lifetime. Think you're overreacting just a little?
Far be it for me to accuse you of drumming up controversy in order to make the union not seem completely irrelevant, but I have to call 'em like I see 'em.
Posted by: Waltie | January 06, 2011 at 08:01 AM
That's not my reaction to the logo. My reaction to the logo is, 'Well that's an eyesore.' -That- was my response to people acting surprised about the company trying to disentangle itself from its public association with coffee after Uncle Howard came back shouting to the rooftops about bringing Starbucks back to its core competencies, which is, last I checked, supposed to be coffee. There's plenty of examples from the last three years I can list of Schultz and the company saying one thing and doing the exact opposite, it's just that this instance is particularly blatant and high visibility.
And the union's relevant enough to get every partner working on the 17th time and a half, so I really don't care if you think I'm trying to drum up controversy or not.
Posted by: James Connolly | January 06, 2011 at 09:20 AM