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.

Credit: Miss Karen

More about BaconCamp SF.

I have a love/hate relationship with Caribou Coffee. Followers of my Foursquare activity will find this surprising since I check into their locations frequently. While not my favorite corporate cup of joe, I often fall prey to the convenience of tripping over their stores throughout my day (most of their 500 locations are in Minnesota).

Don’t get me wrong, there are some things I really enjoy about the Caribou experience: the fireplaces, their Monday Happens campaign ($1 coffee on Mondays), and the company’s line of reusable knitted and fabric cup sleeves to name a few. So I was naturally quite interested when they announced their new logo and branding direction on March 1.

The world’s second-largest coffee retailer (a very distant second to Starbucks, but still impressive) is based here in the Twin Cities and stayed close to home for guidance on their new branding effort. Minneapolis ad agency Colle+McVoy is responsible for the makeover which ironically aims to make the chain feel less regional. Brandweek describes it as an attempt to “bolster its appeal as a branded coffee company by playing down the ski lodge imagery and, yes, the caribou, with a sweeping rebranding.”

The local press had mixed first impressions. The Star Tribune called the new logo “sublime” while City Pages thought it resembled one of those hidden image puzzlers found in Psychology textbooks. “Is it a vase or two lovers kissing? Is it a rose or the profile of a woman? It it a tree or an infant?” They also saw a bulbous-nosed proboscis monkey within the design, which doesn’t add much to the discussion but I just think is awesome.

My musings inspired fellow designer, @sparkyfirepants, to write an excellent post about why rebranding and a new logo won’t fix their problems. The design itself was nicely summed up by underconsideration.com, “The caribou itself is not as convincing and it’s trying too hard to carry meaning: Its body is a coffee bean! The antlers make a ‘C’! The shield is like a park sign! The angle of the jump signifies the expected revenue of 2010! Okay, I made that last one up, but in trying to do too many things with the icon, it becomes a little bit of an amorphous jumble.”

I asked folks on Twitter and Facebook for their feedback and got a range of opinions with distinct trend toward the negative.

Logos are tricky things. People get VERY attached to them and change is largely treated with skepticism. Just think back to the ruckus Pepsi caused a year ago when they changed theirs. Any brand going down this path should tread lightly. At the very least, the process should be thoughtful and clearly explained. I believe the execution of the rollout phase can tell a lot about the brand itself. Most importantly, it reveals how they really feel about their customers.

What does this move say about Caribou?

To me, it says they’re not really committed to doing this in a coordinated fashion. While the new look was unveiled March 1 on cups, napkins, cardboard sleeves and some signage, the website won’t change until April 1. Many other in-store updates reportedly won’t be complete until early 2011. I was at a Caribou on Monday and barely noticed anything different. The fancy napkins were nowhere to be found, the few new signs featured tiny new logos and the staff was lackluster when asked about the change. Worst of all, my coffee came in a cup with the old logo and a cardboard sleeve with the new one.

I realize Caribou locations are franchises and it may be difficult to coordinate something of this size easily. Wasn’t it at least worth the effort to try? When Starbucks roll out their red holiday cups each Fall, it happens at every location at at the same time. Overnight. Of course there is waste involved in replacing the current inventory of Caribou cups, but why make the cup one of the key elements of the rollout if every store doesn’t feature the new ones proudly? Especially when so few other elements even include the new logo.

Why wait a month for the website to reflect the new brand? It’s the easiest way easier to sync a central element up with the new look and certainly cheaper and faster than updating major store elements. Here’s their homepage on March 1. Less than a third of the page is devoted to the new brand. There’s simply an image without any explanation.

Clicking the image leads you to a brief page with the only explanation on the site of the new brand. There is little about the motivation behind the change or expectations of when it will be fully rolled out. They relied on news stories to fill in the gaps. There seemed to be no intention of leading the online conversation or even doing much to support it. What a missed opportunity.

Now to be fair, they did update their Twitter background and avatar. Although they didn’t answer my tweet asking why the new logo wasn’t more prominent on their website. I’m not bitter about that at all. Really.

The other thing that troubles me about the way they describe the new brand is the emphasis on a broader-based, new direction. They are essentially telling their existing customers that the woodsy-lodge feel that attracted them for the last 17 years is no longer desirable. It’s too regional now that they want to grow aggressively. They simply want new customers who are attracted to a more contemporary logo and less homey decor. It’s no surprise some long-time fans are upset. Caribou is moving on without them.

What do I think of the new brand? I thought you’d never ask.

I’ve had a few days to mull this over now and have some random thoughts on the subject. Overall I like the feel, the colors, the style of the hand-lettered typography but have trouble with the execution. There are some readability issues with certain letters in “Caribou,” the sans-serif font used for “COFFEE” is too formal for me and the light blue color is really hard to read against the brown cardboard sleeve. The horizontal version of the logo feels unbalanced (especially with the color/contrast issue on the sleeve), although I like the vertical orientation.

I love the handwritten note elements on the other branded pieces, but it feels tacked on and disconnected to the main logo.

I’m not a fan of the caribou either. It’s too simplistic and icon and a little obvious for my taste. If I want to find hidden pictures I’ll buy a copy of Highlights. They make you work for it.

There’s something about the antler that bothers me too. The way it’s sitting on his head reminds me of Max in “How The Grinch Stole Christmas.”

In any event, I’d love to hear your thoughts. What do you think?

I’ve been working with Bryan Person on a logo for the Social Media Breakfast series.  It will be customized with each chapter’s city name as well as used for the national web site.

As you may know, I’ve been active in the Minneapolis/St. Paul SMB chapter for the last year or so and its been quite a thrill working with Bryan on this project.

Bryan has posted both potential logos on the Social Media Breakfast blog. Please share your feedback in the comments of that post to help them choose the final logo. They’ll be taking comments through Wednesday, May 6.

Thanks for your help!

I’m still not quite buying this, but the word is out that Sci Fi Channel is planning to change their name to SyFy channel by the end of the month. There is already a backlash brewing with a handful of Facebook  protest groups popping up and lots of chatter on Twitter.

Aside from the obvious similarity to social network naming conventions (i.e removing those annoying vowels), I’m taking a wait-and-see attitude regarding the news. However,  I really like the preview of the new logo (from tvweek.com).

Their logo has undergone some major revisions over the years. I thought it would be interesting to take a look back at its development.

Circa 2002

Original logo (mid 90s)

I’d love to hear what do you think of the move to rebrand or the direction of the new look.

Yahoo – Added a vote button and turned theirs into a poll.

Cafemom – had a nice button standing in for their O.

Boston.com – also choose a Vote button.

FriendFeed – went with a sticker instead.

Google – outdid themselves with voting booths.

I also came across this version at googlevote.com, but there isn’t anything else at that domain. Not sure what the story is there.

AOL – had a spiffy, but lengthy, animated version of their logo.

Ask.com – had a dramatic White House and sticker

Surprisingly, my favorite was Microsoft’s Live Search (click the image to enlarge). I love the power of the photo background.

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?