Well. It is usually the case that bringing simplification to a company's visual identity is a good thing. The new Starbucks logo might be the exception.
Of all the Starbucks logos above the nicest is the first one on the far left. It is in an earthy coffee brown color in a friendly, imprecise, stamp-style print with a unique image (nude sea nymph/siren) that communicates authenticity and a tie to soil. But alas, this is too authentic for what is now a 16,858-store chain. So let's go with the next best thing. Give it a slick, solid type treatment for the brand name with a slick, solid icon. The most recent version did just that and so settled in to a strong brand positioning in our commercial landscape.
Uh-oh. The CEO got bored. The company now wishes to "expand their business" and so nixed the name in lieu of what Starbucks executives are probably now mistakenly lauding as a cleaner, modern, and more visually-appealing design. Wrong.
The nymph alone doesn't communicate a "starbuck." This new design vaguely references the sea (Starbucks originated in Seattle and the name refers to a character in Moby Dick). And it references previous iterations of itself. Not the product. I don't see any beans, steam, cups etc.
Final verdict: the new logo is too pared down. And they're going to need to write their name out on something at some point.
Don;t like the new logo, not that I have o be reminded, but it like taking the handle off the refrigerator.
ReplyDelete