The changing of the Starbucks logo is an interesting topic. I've seen the logo before but never examined it, or its previous versions. I laughed at the line at the end of the article, "The new minimalist form is crisper, but without the circle of type, the mermaid appears naked." The mermaid IS naked in every other version. That of all things doesn't seem to be a concern of Starbucks, so why is it brought up in the article like a negative point?
The fact that people feel such ownership over the logo must be a good thing, even if it means people are less likely to accept the new logo at first. I like that Howard Schultz explained the reasons behind the change, regardless of whether it is not usually done that way.
The funny projection of where the Starbucks logo will be in thirty years at the beginning of the article made me laugh, but the truth is that the logo is still recognizable today without the circle of text around it, and it does capture the same feelings as the older one to me. It doesn't seem to be a case of the previous article where things are re-designed for no good reason, Mr. Schultz's explanation makes sense, and no Starbucks customer will see the logo and not know that it's Starbucks. It also doesn't seem to be like the Gap logo debacle. That was a case of a logo being seriously under-designed and underwhelming, but again, the Starbucks logo, while pared down, still has an interesting design.
No comments:
Post a Comment