Has the recent trail of carnage left in the wake of logo changes by Gap, Tropicana and Pepsi really led us here? Is the fear of consumer backlash so great that established brands now think such innocuous tweaks to their identity qualify as rebranding? Maybe the negative reception last year to the new Seattle’s Best Coffee logo (a Starbucks company holding) left them gun-shy.

This better-safe-than-sorry approach may backfire. While their senior creative manager gushes about the design details of the new logo on Starbucks blog, many of the post’s 100+ comments seem to be negative. “We improved composition, brought in more sophisticated stroke width and spacing and a smoother line flow. When it came to her – the Siren – we enhanced her form in subtle ways, smoothing her hair, refining her facial features, weighting the scales on her tail to bring the focus to her face. We enlisted the branding firm of Lippincott to help with these refinements, and give us a better global perspective on the entire identity system.”

It’s interesting to me that they seem to be emphasizing the evolution of the logo as much as the logo itself. The following official photo is available for download on their website and appeared with most of the coverage today.

Brand Autopsy has more details on the Starbucks logo through the years.

A. Engraving of a twin-tailed siren (15th century); B. First Starbucks logo (1971 – 1987); C. Il Giornale logo; D. Merging of Starbucks and Il Giornale (1987 – 1992); E. Redesigned Starbucks logo (1992 – 2010); F. Pike’s Place Roast logo (2008), a revival of the original which spawned it’s own controversy

Despite the anniversary tie-in, it’s an odd move to make. They had record profits last year and are hardly suffering consumer awareness problems. BNET’s Jim Edwards thinks there’s more to it. “It appears to be a mere evolution of the chain’s existing identity but is actually a representative of Starbucks’ abandonment of its core equity.” He calls it brand worsification, “what happens when a perfectly good brand with a solid record in selling, say, coffee, suddenly decides it can sell anything.”

It is true that the change is meant to represent the company’s expansion beyond coffee into a wider array of business lines and international markets. “What is really important here is an evolutionary refinement of the logo, which is a mirror image of the strategy,” said Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks. “This is not just, let’s wake up one day and change our logo.”

Terry Davenport, Starbucks svp of marketing, tells Adweek: “Obviously with a brand with such a huge profile as Starbucks, we approach this change very sensitively. We actually explored a very wide range of options, and when we stood back and looked from afar as well as looked close, we all unanimously gravitated toward the images that freed the siren from the word mark. We really took inspiration from companies like Nike where at one point they separated the word ‘Nike’ from the swoosh in their logo. This allows us to bring our identity to life anytime and anywhere.”

Perhaps the destiny of all mega-brand logos is a swoosh, a bullseye, an ‘M’, a shell, an apple with a bite out of it or whatever the hell Pepsi’s mark is. I’m still not convinced. I’ll keep drinking your coffee, Starbucks, but I have my eye on you.

What do you think? I’d love to hear your opinion in the comments.

Starbucks cups and their jackets have been sporting a new design for the roll-out of Pike Place Roast. Hearkening back to their roots (the first store was in Seattle’s Pike Place Market), they feature a version of the original Starbucks logo. The main figure, often mistaken for a mermaid in the modern logo, is actually a siren. It’s this retro imagery that is stirring up something of a controversy in San Diego of all places.

According to a startribune.com article from 5/16: A Christian group called The Resistance says the new image “has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute,” Mark Dice, founder of the group, said in a news release. “Need I say more? It’s extremely poor taste, and the company might as well call themselves Slutbucks.”

Seriously? I suppose there’s something of a mystique about the women in question, but she’s no Julia Roberts. Ironically, this version is a bit more modest than the original (think in terms of strategic hair placement). The evolution of the Starbucks logo is quite an interesting story in its own right.

I’m actually more offended at the idea that McDonalds is now serving lattes, mochas and cappicinos! Not surprisingly, early reviews (latte, mocha) are lukewarm.

Does anything get you hot and bothered about coffee?