But then again I suppose all things evolve, logos included. You'll see in the illustration to the right that the new Starbucks logo is more of a lineart version without the Starbucks Coffee name on it. From a branding standpoint this seems silly to me. When does a company ever want to use just a symbol to market itself versus its name? Sure many Starbucks fans may be able to spot the logo and render what it it - but what about the rest of the population? If they were not aware of or a customer of Starbucks before the new logo how will this convince them?
I completely understand and support the concept of simplicity but personally, I think they should have kept Starbucks Coffee in the logo and just evolved the artwork as they have done in the past. What are your thoughts?
I agree with your statement here:
ReplyDelete"I completely understand and support the concept of simplicity but personally, I think they should have kept Starbucks Coffee in the logo and just evolved the artwork as they have done in the past."
One thing I wonder is by taking the black ink out of the logo... how much will they save going from a two color to a one color logo.
Starbucks prints a lot... granted they charge a nice penny for their coffee and can afford this minor investment. However, it would be interesting to see the printing cost figures.
Then again... what did they pay for the new identity?