Bad move. It's lost all charm. It's now all about the stripes, which evokes kids, not coffeehouses. It looks like something a little girl would like on napkins and balloons for a birthday theme party.

What a waste of creative opportunity. Do they plan to just keep zooming in until it's just a mermaid's nose? I bet there are some very frustrated designers in the wake of this wimpy "change".

I love type, but this makes a lot of sense to me. Simple, recognizable, 1 color, flexible message (more than coffee).

Without the recognizable text surrounding the image, it looks almost unfamiliar (in a bad way) and quite generic. The black of the mermaid is sorely missed. To me, the new logo says seafood restaurant, resort hotel or cruise line, not coffee.

Spot on Trevor!

This doesn't say 'coffee shop' anymore, big pity considering the attractiveness of the previous identities and tradition.

> This doesn't say 'coffee shop' anymore

Probably because they’re positioning themselves to become more than coffee. Obviously. Have been for a while — what with producing CDs and all that other stuff.

They probably feel that their mermaid image is well known enough that they no longer need to spell out their name, too. Apple does the same thing with their logo.

I found the 2012 version

Sometimes you bank on your existing market image and recognizability to create an identity which marks the next leap forward in what will become your function in the coming years. With this, you pull your old image into your new image and gather the waves that you make with you. I am assuming that Starbucks will soon reorganize into various venture groups--perhaps including, coffee shops, coffee paraphernalia, online music, kitchen utensils, etc..
I think they did a good job and that some form of type will come back after they reinvent themselves.

ChrisL

Of course, they might even decide that "Starbucks" is a confusing name, which doesn't connect to their trademark, and makes people think of Battlestar Galactica. Plus, people think their trademark is a mermaid, when that isn't quite right.

How about Melusine Queen Coffee as their new name?

I agree with Trevor; the logo loses some charm once it’s stripped down like this. For Starbucks that seems like a pretty big deal because the interior design of almost every Starbucks location has been crafted to emphasize warmth and charm. I suspect that Chris is correct and that this new logo is being implemented as the brand expands to much more than a huge chain of coffee shops, and that dropping the charm is essential outside the context of Starbucks stores.

I've read a few articles about Starbucks expanding into wine and beer. If this is their future, this new logo just doesn't fit.

It's cold and plastic; not inviting and warm at all, which has always been the most appealing part of their brand. Starbucks' signature cozy warmth somewhat blots out the "huge corporation" aspect that so many people shun. This new logo sheds all that appeal.

I'm confused at all the disappointment in this thread. The mermaid image has always been the core of the logo, not the type. Do the words "Starbucks Coffee" and a double frame really have that much power? The logo is as “warm and inviting” as it's ever been and we'll all forget this in a few weeks.

More about Starbucks future plans:

SEATTLE — The Starbucks of the future arrived today.

If Starbucks (SBUX) executives have it figured out right, this could be the prototype for the next generation of stores for one of the world's most influential brands.

A very different kind of Starbucks is on tap. It will serve regional wine and beer. It offers an expansive plate of locally made cheeses — served on china. The barista bar is rebuilt to seat customers up close to the coffee.

Most conspicuously, the place looks less like a Starbucks and more like a cafe that's been part of the neighborhood for years — yet that's "green" in design and decor. This is the calling card of independent java joints that have been eating and sipping away at Starbucks' evening business for decades. U.S. Starbucks stores get 70% of business before 2 p.m.

The only thing that bothers me about the new stores is the outrageously ugly Fake hewn wood counter edge near the barista pick-up. It looks like someone melted a plastic counter and then skinned it with fake walnut veneer--or is that what they did on purpose?

Yikes

That's what a pressure of being a publicly trading company does to the company. They have to keep the growth of the revenue growing, and they must be close to exhausting their new customer pool - hence the wild experiments.

And they also stopped selling the Copenhagen Danish, damn it. The only decent pastry they had.

And they stopped selling Columbian coffee. That is probably due more to the drug lords there forcing farmers to plant their version of "cash crop" ;-)

i like it: simple, clean, elegant, modern. sweet!

Sanitized.

I don't think the new logo has less warmth and feeling than the one which immediately preceded it. The earlier versions might be considered superior from that perspective.

But the newer one has exactly the same pictorial image as the one before; the only thing removed is the circle with the text. But the pictorial image is now larger, and now the green color that was in the circle is moved to the image.

Even so, it is in a way more "modern", more functional. But I don't think it has those characteristics in a bad way. Yes, any change will always involve some loss, but in branding, change has to happen to keep an identity from becoming dated.

It's interesting how doing away with the black and enlarging the patterns in the image brings in so much more white into the logo — it sort of makes the green seem a lighter shade. It is a little brighter, softer, friendlier, baby-talking "My Strarbucks" kind of feel. And yet it still somehow retains its deadening, "we're a massive, soulless, predatory machine that wants to dominate the world" menacing vibe. It's like a magical mermaid palace where the cops hang out.

I think my problem with this is that they were aiming for “simpler” but sometimes removing elements does not simple make.

I mean, before, I looked at the symbol and I saw a badge; and that was it. A frame and a drawing inside. It was unified. But now that that same drawing stands alone, what I get is all the little details in the drawing (and the drawing does have a lot of detail). What was once “a drawing”, a single element, is now a jumbled mess of lines. It has become harder to “read”, to register.

The 1987 mermaid looked rather gross and in terms of branding, the 1992 redesign surely was the most important one.

That said, I’m not the biggest fan of all these fast-food and coffee shop chains popping up everywhere on this planet like an itchy rash. And I don’t see the point in gilding pustules.

"...I’m not the biggest fan of all these fast-food and coffee shop chains popping up everywhere on this planet..."

Perhaps in Europe, you are right. In most parts of the USA, there has been a good residual effect. Starbucks has shown others that they can make a go of it. Until Starbucks came east, we had almost no decent coffee houses at all. Now there are several small independent cafes that have opened and been delightful. One block closer to me than Starbucks is an incredible place called "Natalia's" They are thriving! Making great pastries and soups! The lady who runs it is a great baker and business women and she hires very friendly help.

http://www.nataliaselegantcreations.com/

Do the words "Starbucks Coffee" and a double frame really have that much power? The logo is as “warm and inviting” as it's ever been and we'll all forget this in a few weeks.

In the context of Starbucks the extra bits do make a difference. They add old-fashioned clutter that’s very at home in the Starbucks stores, which are cluttered with odd furniture, too many hanging lights, an excess of typographically inconsistent signage, seasonal campaign materials, and whatever oddball products and merchandise the chain is trying to sell. But if Starbucks is moving away from that context then the new design could be entirely appropriate.

But now that that same drawing stands alone, what I get is all the little details in the drawing (and the drawing does have a lot of detail).

Yep. Like the mermaid having two tails, which is kind of freaky :)

She's a melusine, not a mermaid, that's why.

or a Melvillezine ;-)

This is awfully corporate. It looks like it ought to be on the tailfin of a 767, not a cup of coffee. Or a bottle of beer, or a wheel of cheese, or the signboard of a "cafe that's been part of the neighborhood for years."

She's a melusine

a nixie?

@John - knowing she's a melusine doesn't make this dudette with two fish tails any less freaky :)

Dez, have you ever considered bartering with Natalia's? I checked out their website, and they really, really need you! :)

Pies & coffee for design services. In the end, isn't that what we work for anyway?

I'm happy my feelings are the same as many of yours.

As someone just learning, this redesign has reaffirmed to me that really clean lacks comfort. All the Starbucks I've been in are very 'cozy'. But this rebrand makes me think of ultra modern - like a chic hair salon.

I do have faith though that the icon will be used in creative ways that bring back the friendly feeling the old logo did.

But if the logo ever becomes a turbo-melusine...

@Alaskan

Yes, you are right. I would love to do that (and used to in the 60-70s).

In this case, part of their charm is that they are clearly a small family operation with the atmosphere of the welcoming kitchen of some European peasant family. Everything they make is homemade, handmade, organic, no preservatives, plenty of calories, honest neighborhood stuff. But the lady is an artist in the kitchen. I wouldn't change a thing in their cafe. Sure I could make it visually better and give it aires of visual sophistication but I wouldn't want a soul to think this was a chic little trendy place. This is "Natalia's" own kitchen and everything you get there is damn good without my meddling (besides, the place is full all the time!). :-)

"But if the logo ever becomes a turbo-melusine..."

LOL!!! Then you need an Audi!

Brands like Starbucks have to understand and nourish their own heritage very carefully or they go wrong. They have a global logo classic, why mess with it? You can hear the marketing people telling them they have to change it if they want to to diversify and 'grow the brand' but in truth they risk cutting themselves off from their own heritage and thus their authenticity, which is the MOST important thing if they don't want to lose their way. It's a misunderstanding of how people percieve branding. No one reads the words every time they look at the logo, they see it as a whole, it simply does not matter if it says 'coffee' but now sells more than that. it's part of their history. It's reassuring. Real stories about real companies are quirky and not neat. Thus they are human. They should not be ironed flat. They want to avoid corporate blandness but have no idea how to do that or how to cherish their own genuine individuality. The Starbucks cup is the definitive unit of their identity and it doesn't look so good anymore. A bit like a less desirable ripoff. it's a cock-eyed marketing decision, not a design one. They are mad.

This is a design intervention, replacing the medallion, which is a traditional "non-designed", crafted format.
To tell the truth, I wasn't aware that the lady was a mermaid/melusine, although I have oft sipped at Starbucks. I thought she was a star child hippy chick. But I will still go there, for an Americano and slice of lemon poppyseed cake.

I have recently been impressed with the typography of their campaigns, such as the Christmas one which combined Camera with Eagle in single headlines.

SE, I think you're really right and would add only that, although they may not teach it in business school, a lot of these types of undertakings are the product of executive shoving matches over who's in charge and who's going to have the most visible legacy. Ambition and craft can make for some uncomfortable partnerships, and it's a lucky day when craft prevails. When you see relatively powerful entities tinkering with a successful brand it could be a lot of things — the need to stay fresh, the desire to expand, and so on — but it's also important to remember that for high-ranking people the very act of taking action and of making decisions is the single most important thing. You don't get recognized for doing nothing, and the tinkering is itself a theatrical device, an expression of power, a shaping of reality.

Another reason, Don, is the sales job done by marketing, advertising, branding firms who love to sell a brand "Freshening" to the companies that are successful enough to pay rather than those who are in need but under the radar--and too broke to afford it ;-)

It's true that spending money on new signs seems wasteful.

And the existing Starbucks logo has already been through more changes than it really needed, perhaps.

But the current logo is well-loved and well-recognized.

Even so, it is a "busy" logo. It was very unique... precisely because, unlike other brand logos, it looked a bit like something a high school football team would use. "Going Minimal"... is opting for the kind of cool, professional look that most other businesses have also adopted.

Even though the trademark Starbucks image is still unique - and doing without words in a trademark isn't common either.

Instead of being disappointed in this change, my gut reaction is that it's long overdue.

Of course, there's one other thing. The circle formed by the base of her crown and her tails - a circle within a circle that touches the outside circle at only one tangent point - makes me think of a Smith chart.

You'd no doubt get a wall of blank stares if you mentioned that inside a Starbucks.

Yes, Té. The same stare that you would get there if you called yourself Ishmael. ;-)

Indeed! Moby Dick, like a corporation, is an elaborate and deeply coded complex of symbols from which emerges an engrossing and utterly convincing fiction. As Ishmael said, I too am one of the crew!

Could be worse. They'd very likely think I was a mobster if I called myself Don Camillo.

Well, I stared blankly too when looking up the history of the Starbucks logo. Why would they copy the green circle from an Italian newspaper, or, rather, why would an Italian newspaper in particular be taken as its source? (Later, I found an explanation for that logo with the Mercury head - it being of an espresso coffee chain founded by a former Starbucks manager that was absorbed into Starbucks when it finally relented and decided espresso was a good idea.)

I have one Don Camillo novel I picked up in the (equivalent to a) remainder counter of a used book store. The author complained of the present generation, pursuing "La Dolce Vita", for whom the book was (most emphatically!) not written in a preface.

These are a series of comic novels about a small-town priest and his rivalry with the local Communist agitator. Thus, at one point, Don Camillo finds a statue of an obscure, possibly legendary saint, on the grounds of his church annoying and ugly, so he dumps it in the river one fine night; the Communist catches him at it, and so the next day, he rescues this statue of a saint from the river where, obviously, some terrible vandals had put it, and so he is hailed as a hero for being so generous to his natural opponents, the traditional Catholic Church... and the reader is given to understand, I suppose, that God used him to correct a spiritual problem Don Camillo was suffering from, thus leading this quiet priest further along the truly saintly life.

It’s fascinating to watch the discussion develop, with a lot of comments which, to me, seem very little connected with the logo itself, and very much with the personal attachment to Starbucks as a (series of) physical place(s) or the opinion on a corporation.
I’ve been to Starbucks maybe once in my life (in Kyoto, I think), and my emotional involvement with it is the same I could have with McDonalds. To me, the past and present logo of Starbucks was always bordering the ugly, with some uninspiring typography to say the least. It never said “coffee” (except in the literal sense).
It resembles a zodiacal sign and, at most, all these wavy lines could say “beverage”.
The problem they face, in my opinion, isn’t to reposition themselves beyond coffee, but phase a bad logo away without falling in the Gap trap.
I think Kristin (http://typophile.com/node/77776#comment-446420) nailed it.

It isn't a bad logo. Or, perhaps more accurately, it wasn't a bad logo.

Originally, when Starbucks was one cafe in Seattle, a logo that looks like the sign outside, say, an English pub, was entirely appropriate - both to the business, and to the available budget for concerns such as branding.

Over the years, I think they did an excellent job of modifying the logo so as to combine the two conflicting goals of having a brand symbol that has the elegance and stylishness befitting a major corporation - and a symbol with the quaintness and charm associated with a friendly neighborhood business devoted to quality.

While the evolution has been away from (b) and towards (a), they've done an excellent job of keeping as much of (b) as possible while progressing towards (a).

That mermaid with stripes is, in its own way, a great work of art, holding emotions and symbolism in perfect balance. Compared to the Mona Lisa, she's been minimalistic since 1987 and especially 1992, when the secondary circle motif was established.

I read all the arguments in favour of the change, and yet I am still puzzled by what exactly this update is meant to achieve. It changes the aesthetic feel of the logo (and through that of the brand and the company) dramatically.

Current logo is enclosed, well-rounded and has an unmistakable personality (in part due to an unusual color scheme). It looks like something that you can get in a palm of your hand and it'd be a neat thing to toy with. Like an interesting coin, or a pebble. The rework has none of this. The black is gone, replaced by an over-abundance of rather unpleasant looking green. Gone is the feeling of being well rounded, replaced by a serrated edge. The melusine now is the logo, her weirdness is in your face, not counter-balanced or contained by other parts of the logo.

How hard was it to have both greens and blacks in the new logo? Or better yet - to add a simple stroke around it?

Retains much of the existing feel, gets rid of the Coffee and makes shareholders happy-happy, bling-bling.

Ah. So that is what I felt was missing from the new logo. Anyway, the update means I need no longer wonder if Starbucks is a beer.

"I will have no man in my boat who is not afraid of a whale."

Or better yet - to add a simple stroke around it?

Now that’s a dramatic improvement.

It brings the medallion or coin feeling back or allows us to peer into the looking glass of legend once more.

Generally speaking, though, there will be, at least in effect, a circular line around the trademark in any event, when it is placed on store signage.

I think that this option was likely considered, but rejected as a half-measure. Furthermore, the new trademark, as is, very strongly suggests a circular shape visually in any event.

Of course, this particular change may not work very well with the crown floating on water version of the trademark used in Sa'udi Arabia: there, they probably should avoid changing the trademark.

It is not about circular shape, it is about the perception of a metal edge as in a coin or medallion cast in metal.

Generally speaking, though, there will be, at least in effect, a circular line around the trademark in any event, when it is placed on store signage.

But there isn't on the cup...

I agree that apankrat's line improves the logo considerably.

Didn’t we have the same discussion back in 1999 when Shell dropped the type from their logo?

http://perpenduum.com/2007/11/evolution-of-the-pecten-shell-logo/

Didn’t we have the same discussion back in 1999 when Shell dropped the type from their logo?

It reminds me of a little joke I did back when Apple dropped "Computer" from its name:
http://www.mompracem.net/broken/2007/01/evolution.html

You just needed the stripes in the earlier apples, Riccardo ;-)

coach outlet store salary payout, tax reporting
coach outlets store bonus scheme, consolidation
coach outlet factory annual performance
coach store outlet annual performance
coach outlet factory per grading system, individual
coach online factory ry payout, tax reporting
discount coach Work closely with