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.
Can you post proof that the union had anything to do with making Martin Luther King Day a paid Starbucks holiday?
I'm not saying the Union had nothing to do with it since I honestly don't know why Starbucks decided to make that change. All I know is that during my time at Starbucks I have seemingly seen the union claim every positive change within the company as something they take credit for, and every negative change as proof that everybody needs to join the union.
So I'm definitely interesting in seeing some proof that the union was the reason why Starbucks made MLK day a paid holiday.
Posted by: Waltie | January 06, 2011 at 09:27 AM
I don't mind the new logo, I'm just a little disappointed that it was the BIG announcement. With a few days to speculate, my peers came up with some good theories before the Open Forum.
Posted by: slaw275 | January 06, 2011 at 11:14 AM
Let me be the first to comment...
I bet that this new logo does not "go down" too well, but the Company keeps it for all of 2011 (the 40th Anniversary year). At the end of the year, they will retire it and bring back the old logo, and make some lame excuse to cover the change (ret-conned to be "just for the anniversary").
Posted by: Jeff Tom | January 06, 2011 at 12:16 PM
howard is a genius! how can any of u morons question him at this pt? i own stock so im thrilled, five year high! plus, i love going into the stores, spring st in new york is unreal. the new logo is a good move. u people coming on here and hating are beyond helpless... ur pathetic
Posted by: james thompson | January 06, 2011 at 02:21 PM
Another flop for Starbucks, like Gaps. Terry and his minions have run out of ideas to reinvigorate the brand. A logo change is not going to drive sales. They will spend millions to changing branding, yet drinks are still being made improperly and the stores are filthy. Time to fire Terry Davenport.
Posted by: deborah t | January 06, 2011 at 02:24 PM
My mom says it's ugly - I say, great only one ink color saving tons of money, fabulous I want more labor hours!
Posted by: hmpht | January 06, 2011 at 03:22 PM
Was shocked to see you guys changed the logo! Gotta say, not a fan of the redesign! The old one was much better....Burcu from Istanbul, Turkey
Posted by: burcu | January 06, 2011 at 04:49 PM
As one who has designed logos, I don't like it. The name is important; the black border missing makes it look like a misprint or something.
If they're worried about adding other products, they should have kept the "Starbucks" name and the black border, possibly dropping the word "Coffee" from it...
Posted by: Ben Fardin | January 06, 2011 at 06:04 PM
i don't like this logo
Posted by: araç kiralama | January 06, 2011 at 06:29 PM
A million bucks wager that Starbucks is going into the gourmet snack business.
Posted by: margomai | January 06, 2011 at 08:22 PM
After more than 15yrs with Starbucks I am not surprised. Pepsi, AT&T, IBM, Nike, BofA all these have wordless logos that have impact and are some of the most recognizeable. The BHAG of several years back was to be the most recognized LOGO in the world. This moves toward this goal.
From a sales standpoint - I will highlight the change in logo on products that we have and "get them while they last" b/c the new ones are coming. Q3 and Q4 sales spikes?
Posted by: PDXBarista | January 06, 2011 at 09:18 PM
At least now they can't sue everyone who uses a double circle with writing in capital letters within the circles anymore. :-)
Posted by: me myself and I | January 06, 2011 at 09:31 PM
Waltie, of course Starbucks has not stated officially that they decided to recognize MLK day because of the union. Companies never admit they do anything because of a union unless they are literally forced to by courts or contractual obligations.
But the union has been the main, and perhaps only, force calling for recognition of MLK day. Can you name one other person or group that has publicly called for it? I can't. And Starbucks did say that they did do it because of partner feedback. Well, union members are the only partners I've EVER heard calling for it soo....
I'm sure someone out there somewhere who is not in the union has called on Starbucks to recognize MLK day, and I'm sure if you ask most Starbucks partners, they'd agree its a good thing, but they weren't out there pushing for it.
Is it so hard to believe that maybe, just maybe, Starbucks finally decided that they could not afford to claim to embrace diversity, while facing yet another annual public demonstration pointing out the fact that they do not honor the single largest US celebration of the civil rights movement? I can't imagine why else they would just decide out of the blue to do that. When was the last time they did something that would cost them a lot of money for absolutely no reason (and no, shutting down stores that one time was not for "no reason" it was a dumb reason - PR stunt - but not no reason). Because if you deny that this had to do with the union, you are basically saying they are doing it for no reason.
Posted by: Aaron | January 06, 2011 at 10:54 PM
"But the union has been the main, and perhaps only, force calling for recognition of MLK day. Can you name one other person or group that has publicly called for it? I can't. "
I've certainly never heard any partners wishing for that. I hear partners wishing for other things, but not that. And this is supposed to prove the union isn't irrelevant? You can claim one "victory" that even you admit most partners don't care about.
Posted by: Waltie | January 06, 2011 at 11:11 PM
Don't care either way and people will get used to it.
http://bit.ly/dVicDG
Posted by: Account Deleted | January 06, 2011 at 11:16 PM
Waltie, certainly partners do care about it. I'm quite certain that most partners will think extra money in their paychecks is a good thing. I'm also pretty confident most partners would think that Starbucks recognizing MLK day is a good thing, simply on principle. Yes, many partners do complain about a lot of things. Most of those lately are related to cutbacks that have happened. So it's not too shocking that they're concerned mostly with regaining ground in those areas than with calling for other improvements that we never had in the first place. Why would they, when Starbucks is pretty intent on not rolling back any of the cuts? That doesn't mean they don't care about MLK day.
Anyhow, I'm glad we're on the same page that the union has been main force in pushing for recgonition of MLK day, and therefore, does deserve credit for this victory. Please help spread the word that TOGETHER we CAN win better working conditions.
Posted by: Aaron | January 06, 2011 at 11:24 PM
Starbucks did actively survey over 90% of their workforce a little while back, so they did gain some insight into what partners want (although follow up reporting of the results has been unfortunately very limited).
While the (very small) union may have called for some things publicly, they certainly can't take credit for being the only ones to champion ideas.
Posted by: Joe | January 06, 2011 at 11:52 PM
@joe
I am hardly pro union, but if asked which day would be a better time and half day, i absolutely would've said easter, or christmas eve first.
and the union has pushed for years and year on this.
personally i think everyday a bank is closed, we should get time and half.
Posted by: Stan | January 07, 2011 at 12:05 AM
Having grown up in a family with an artist mother, it looks like someone needs to finish the job. It looks like someone heard the whistle at the end of a shift and never went back to complete the job but turned it in anyway.
Posted by: usorthem3 | January 07, 2011 at 12:39 AM
LOL @ the union having a part in getting MLK as a paid holiday!!
Posted by: S-to-the-M | January 07, 2011 at 01:21 AM
has anyone received Tribute Blend in their stores? SO good!
Posted by: somewhere out there | January 07, 2011 at 06:11 AM
The truth of the matter is that after 40 years if they were not going to recognize MLK day as a paid holiday by their selves, then they were never going to without a calling or budge from somebody. I am sure the union is the largest group of people and loudest voice to corporate on this subject since many unified voices speak louder than a single person.
Still waiting on that year of the partner, meanwhile every partner over 3 years at my store has quit. It seems the lack of loyalty in my area is finally starting to show that unless you reinvest in your partners that we will never make any major leaps forward as a company.
Some of our customers come only as habit and their experiences have been none too pleasant. It happens when we are retraining a whole staff every 6 months.
Posted by: Darth Sidamo | January 07, 2011 at 06:13 AM
what exactly did the union 'do' to get mlk as holiday? just complain about it? collective bargaining? lmao.
Posted by: Hipsterdufus | January 07, 2011 at 07:59 AM
Phew. The union works for years and got us an extra couple hours pay if we happen to work that day. I can now see why the union is important.
I agree with Stan. I would rather have time and a half for NY eve or Xmas Eve.
Posted by: spence | January 07, 2011 at 10:31 AM
Is this the redone GAP logo disaster all over again?
Posted by: catherine | January 07, 2011 at 10:46 AM
Another dumb corporate decision in a long line of recent dumb decisions! The numbskulls (led by head numbskull Howard) just can't seem to do ANYTHING right these days. Rest assured that the Starbucks name will be returned to the logo along with some lame-assed explanation as to why this was part of the "strategic" plan all along.
Posted by: ncsm | January 07, 2011 at 11:19 AM
@ Darth
Hell, I'm still waiting on the results of that partner survey, though I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: otterinthewater | January 07, 2011 at 01:08 PM
I personally do not like it and the few customers that have mentioned it to me at work says they do not like it. Between this and printing up all those stupid skcm recipe cards is this really a good way to spend money?
Posted by: Scared barista. | January 07, 2011 at 03:12 PM
Looks like one of those freakish animals
that are born in some interrupted phase of
becoming a twin.
Posted by: Kimdee | January 07, 2011 at 03:15 PM
if you don't like the change, just place the sticker over the new logo...
that way the cup will still look cheap...
like the cheap stickers that mark the cup now...
I realy like the old way where it was hand crafted....
"O" that's right change make it faster and move on....
burnt coffee, burnt milk....they don't care about Standards anymore...
it's all about the Bux's in hand...
why would the owner get paid in Stock op's....
Stock should be put back into the company so it can grow...
this company is falling apart really fast...
Howard doesn't care anymore....
he is done, and looking for a way out...
Posted by: Gone Like The Wind | January 07, 2011 at 05:09 PM
SB is the worst tasting brand on the market! From the first cup until the last one I drank, my opinion has not changed! Consistently bad tasting and way over-priced! The logo issue is grasping, strident and shallow! What relationship does a mermaid have with coffee?
Keep changing.....same thing as adding more hot water to dilute an already bad brew!
Posted by: jr | January 07, 2011 at 06:01 PM
Does anyone get on here and ever post anything positive about Starbucks? All most people do is gripe and complain about anything that Starbucks tries to do. So what if Howard wants to change the logo, he did two other times too (even from its original) and I think Starbucks did pretty good for itself just a tad. So we are changing it again, big deal. Is it my favorite choice, no at the moment but I'm sure it will grow on me. Howard is a business genius, he created this company from a time where they didn't even sell lattes or espresso to what it is today. If the man wants to change a freakin logo, let him. Why don't you go to the site "IHateStarbucks.com" and post there, and if you are a partner, if you don't like it, GET ANOTHER JOB!!!
I did think the comment about if you stare at the logo long enough it will tell you to buy VIA, was hilarious btw.
Posted by: StarbucksMgr3 | January 08, 2011 at 10:52 AM
Tribute blend??? More info please.
Posted by: Crema_the_Crop | January 08, 2011 at 11:23 AM
"if you are a partner, if you don't like it, GET ANOTHER JOB!!!"
How about idiots who think this is a valid argument go post somewhere else if it's so terrible to see people criticizing their company? Last I checked, many partners receive some form of stock and therefore it is perfectly acceptable for them to voice concerns over actions which they believe will negatively impact their employment and their stock prices. I know this is a terribly complicated concept for someone with such simplistic thinking, but maybe you could manage to understand.
Posted by: A Non eMoose | January 08, 2011 at 12:54 PM
i want to be the first on my block to have a starbucks lawn mower, a dryer , a washing machine.
when we drop "coffee" we open ourselves to the universe , to limitlessness !
why stop at the trienta cup ?
your limiting what we partners can do.
are all partners equal? ...........
silly, i'm gonna go read a new book called Huck Finn.......
Posted by: abe | January 08, 2011 at 02:20 PM
'sa good logo. Less clutter.
Posted by: Bween | January 08, 2011 at 03:00 PM
What I find interesting is when Schultz came back a couple of years ago to take control of the company when it was floundering he made a big deal about how the company needed to get back to the core of the business which is, of course, coffee. Everything from then on was about the 'coffee experience' and not surprisingly, customers came back - as the company put renewed emphasis on the origins of coffee. So now, with the stock price 4x what is was before being on the coffee-bandwagon, they're in some ways deemphasizing the importance of coffee as a key ingredient. We'll see.
Posted by: javajohn | January 09, 2011 at 09:26 AM
"So now, with the stock price 4x what is was before being on the coffee-bandwagon, they're in some ways deemphasizing the importance of coffee as a key ingredient. "
I think what he meant was that the company wasn't doing well, so they had to go back to their core in order to reevaluate their business model and look at what worked and what didn't work. Obviously, Howard never meant that we would go back to just selling coffee and lattes. That would make no sense.
Posted by: Waltie | January 09, 2011 at 11:57 AM
Thing is , partners DO care and howie takes away everything they care about. For those who do not care, this is no biggy. If you think that taking the word coffee off the logo is a coincidence, you are hugely mistaken.
Posted by: sadday | January 10, 2011 at 12:58 PM
I remember when I used to enjoy reading this blog and the comments on it. Now it seems like 90 percent of the comments are from people who just hate Starbucks, hate Howard Schultz, and are inclined to hate anything they do. Of course, everyone's entitled to their opinion. But if that's how you feel and you work there? Seriously, go find another job. And if you can't because there are no jobs / other jobs don't pay as well / other jobs don't have the same benefits / whatever, well, then, how about being thankful for the company that employs you and gives you benefits and not trashing them here at every opportunity?
Posted by: Frank | January 12, 2011 at 07:37 PM
Oh, and as for the logo? It looks like a good move for them. It's true to their heritage while enabling them to more easily market a wider variety of products in a wider variety of markets. It's obviously Starbucks and yet it's a more flexible, adaptable logo.
Posted by: Frank | January 12, 2011 at 07:42 PM
I was a late adopter, coming into the Starbucks fold in 2005, but I have to admit that I am thoroughly dismayed with yet another lurch in direction.
The 'third place' concept appealed to me tremendously, and I've happily whiled away untold hundreds of hours in SBX in Austin and Atlanta. When I travel, the first thing I look for near (or in) the hotel is a Starbucks.
What brought me back over and over? The coffeehouse feel of the atmosphere, the (generally) indie attitude most baristas I have encountered embody, and a place where I could read, write, or just relax.
I don't need Starbucks to be Panera or something other than a coffee-and-tea house. I need Starbucks to be Starbucks. Otherwise, I will simply make one of the local coffee shops here in ATL my new home and say goodbye.
Posted by: Patrick | January 16, 2011 at 12:02 PM
The logo does not look more 'flexible'. It is dumbed-down and simplistic. It is going to be much cheaper to print by dropping the second color (black) and can now be done with a single stamp on a white background paper cup or clear plastic cup. Taking the english letters out also makes it more 'global' because no words of ANY language will be used. If you like international road signs, you will will love the new logo.
Posted by: Patrick | January 16, 2011 at 12:07 PM
If I hadn't left the company 3 years ago after 6 lovely years (very little sarcasm there; i loved serving customers during the "good years"), this would be the final straw that would make me leave. The company has completely lost sight of the focus and intent of the company and all the things that made them great to begin with. Hey Starbucks...do you miss your soul, or is the gap padded by the almighty dollar? Uncle Howie, I am ashamed of you.
Posted by: infamouslinds | January 16, 2011 at 12:46 PM
lol... logo change? looks unfinished...
Posted by: The Ghost of Pat Nerr | January 17, 2011 at 08:12 AM
Patrick:
You are dead-on with your comment. I left the company last September, and I couldn't be more happy about my decision. I was a store manager. I loved my partners and my customers, but the company sucked the life out of me with the constant cutting of hours, increased work load and absolute lack of "Thank You's".
Posted by: Feeling Joyful!!!! | February 03, 2011 at 01:50 PM
Coffee is still the core of Starbucks. That will never change. But Starbucks is dropping the words because the siren itself is enough. Everyone knows exactly what the siren is and what it represents.......amazing coffee. Very much like how Nike dropped the word Nike from the swoosh, and Apple too. People know and respect the symbols enough to the point that words are know longer needed.
Posted by: Starbucks | March 01, 2011 at 02:00 PM
I like the old logo and it has nothing to do with not liking change. It just looks odd to me.
Posted by: directory Melbourne | June 29, 2011 at 09:23 AM
When last did STARBUCKS hand you a check for drinking their coffee? or when you told someone how delicious it is. If you work at STARBUCKS,(or any job) what amount was your bonus for showing someone the job or picking up the slack for someone who called in sick? Is STARBUCKS A HEALTHY COFFEE? You are paying how much for a cup?... and you still at your job, making someone else rich while your life passes you by? WAIT A MINUTE !
CHANGE YOUR COFFEE, CHANGE YOUR LIFE!
Go to my website www.healthycoffee.homecoffeebusiness.org
www.samsgold.net
Posted by: samantha curtis | September 30, 2011 at 04:40 PM