Updated Starbucks Logo

[stumpygremlin]

Frankly, I think the removal of the name of the company from the logo is a downgrade

[JayJaxon]

They want to be like McDonald's, Pepsi, and other companies that are recognizable by the logo only. My issue with this is that it looks unfinished.

[JamieRose]

It looks like they're trying to take a strong identity and simplify it. Unfortunately they've oversimplified. It just looks like a piece of the whole identity is missing.

[Waffles]

Frankly, I think the removal of the name of the company from the logo is a downgrade

You'll be happy to know the name will be back on the logo by 2505:

I guess you might call that an Upgrayedd.

[Quillz]

They want to be like McDonald's, Pepsi, and other companies that are recognizable by the logo only. My issue with this is that it looks unfinished.

This is what I thought, too, and it works. Starbucks has become recognizable by their logo only, so the text was unnecessary.

[loogodude90]

I actually identify Starbucks by the image as well as that font. If STARBUCKS COFFEE is written in any other font (or removed for that matter), I think it will be less recognizable.

[slapshot]

Starbucks will be saving money in the long run with this change, since now the logo is one color instead of two. The printing costs alone should eventually offset the rebranding cost.

[KJTALBOT]

People like roundels. A logo in the middle surrounded by words. Starbucks will regret this.

[TxRangersFan]

She keeps losing fingers. In a few years, she won't have any left.

[MDC]

I like it, There's no confusion that we are looking at a Starbucks logo, it is immediately identifiable. It's a pretty generic font to let go IMO, and isnt a big deal. And I doubt they are rolling without a version that includes text somewhere

[andrewharrington]

She keeps losing fingers. In a few years, she won't have any left.

The mermaid has no visible fingers in any of the logos.

I think the reason it looks unfinished to some of us is because we're used to seeing it with the type. However, consider this: You are not the customer that Starbucks is trying to win over at this point. It's your children and subsequent generations that they're after. If you're an adult right now, you're aware of Starbucks' place in the brand landscape of the world and how it got there over the past two decades or so. You've already made a decision on whether you're A.) a coffee drinker or not a coffee drinker and B.) a local boutique drinker, a chain boutique drinker or a gas station/fast food/office pot drinker. If they haven't won you over during the past twenty years while they've been steadily growing into the largest coffee corporation in the world, then they're not going to win you over now, and they don't care how you perceive their brand. Your young children, however, have not made those decisions, and Starbucks is hoping that the kids that grow up with this logo see that mermaid icon and think 'coffee!' in much the same way we already see the golden arches and think 'food!' or we see a red and white can and think 'soup!' They want their brand to be read simply as 'coffee' rather than 'Starbucks Coffee,' as if it's the end-all, be-all, king of coffee; the only coffee there is. Plus, they also sell stuff besides coffee now, so they're taking the MTV route and trying to avoid pigeonholing themselves as they branch out in their future endeavors.

It's actually a pretty smart move, branding-wise, but it sure does show the size of their ego.

[Radiohead]

Plus, they also sell stuff besides coffee now, so they're taking the MTV route and trying to avoid pigeonholing themselves as they branch out in their future endeavors.

The only problem is, after they stopped showing videos, MTV sucked, and they eventually lost their cultural relevance. Let's hope in 10 years Starbucks isn't offering financial and insurance services.

[BrianVlietDesign]

I like it to be honest. We all have seen the Starbucks logo, know theres a lady within that emblem, and don't need to see font in order to associate the two. It's simple and appealing. Now, it's not necessarily an upgrade, but I do like the idea of them trying to have a recognizable symbol. I think in the long run it will be fine.

[epper]

Starbucks will be saving money in the long run with this change, since now the logo is one color instead of two. The printing costs alone should eventually offset the rebranding cost.

Not to mention only needing one logo for multiple languages / alphabets.

[DEAD!]

This update is fine. I think, according to Starbucks, they are at the point where the mermaid is easily recognisable. My company recently a small job, helping with a cover for a Starbucks store sign at Washington Square in DC, but the diagram we were given had the old logo, so I wonder if the sign company is going to put in the new logo, or the old one.

[netsjazz]

The updated starbucks logo is okay but old one is better than ugly updated green starbucks logo.

[supermati]

I don't like it because the black and green looked great together, now it's just an single colored logo that looks cheap. It also feels unfinished, but that feeling will fade over time, we are just used to looking at the whole thing.

Edit:

If done better (bad PS skills) I would have liked it better this way: Keep the mermaid background black and keep the green as well.

[Cujo]

Push.

The logo speaks for itself. It standing alone now does nothing for me, good or bad. I'll still know it's Starbucks.

[BrandMooreArt]

its still obviously Starbucks, but im still not sure why it was done. i dont feel it was as necessary to drop "coffee" and then half the mark as they think. even if they do want to branch out into other things

by itself it looks fine, i suppose it will in context as well, which i really want to see. this is not a redesign that you should say "its better" or whatever until you see it in use.

[aci]

I don't know how necessary the actual words were, but the circle completed the logo for me. Maybe they could have removed the words and made the circle narrower?