1. Why Starbucks' Logo Change Doesn't
Equate to Brand Change
The Siren Is Evolving to Support a New Growth
Agenda, and Rightly So
By Carl Johnson
Published: January 19, 2011
Carl Johnson
Over four decades, Starbucks has grown from a single Seattle coffeehouse to a $10
billion global retailer of coffee as well as a variety of other food and beverage products.
The recent contretemps over Starbucks' decision to evolve its iconic siren logo is
instructive on three fronts, since it:
1. demonstrates the deep emotional bonds that Starbucks has created with consumers
over the past 40 years;
2. reveals a fundamental but common misunderstanding of the difference between
trademarks and brands;
3. provides useful leadership lessons on the importance of aligning all
communication elements to signal a company's evolving strategic direction,
particularly in cases where the company's name, its principal trademark and its
core brand are all one and the same.
On the first point, Howard Schultz and his management team have done an outstanding
job for decades in creating the strong combination of emotional, functional and customer-
experience elements that comprise Starbucks. The world's most valuable trademarks
virtually always share a similar combination. Starbucks accomplished its iconic status by
promising -- and delivering -- outstanding products and an in-store experience that is both
emotionally and physically satisfying. For many years, Starbucks had no conventional
advertising; the products, experience and word-of-mouth were enough to establish and
build the business.
Page 1

2. For millions of consumers worldwide, the coffee-consuming occasion was entirely
redefined, forever altered for the good. Whenever such an iconic company -- whether
Apple, Coca-Cola or Starbucks -- materially changes any element in this magic mix, for
example, product, trademark, logo or advertising, there is likely to be an outcry,
sometimes justified. It is the passion held by its consumers that precipitates the outcry.
Such a reaction is not unexpected, but if the change is strategically sound and doesn't
threaten the emotional bonds forged with its consumers, the company should stay the
course.
There are, of course, multiple, well-known examples of changes gone wrong that were
reversed following an outcry. In the case of New Coke, the decision was apparently not
sound, as the many consumers who preferred the original Coca-Cola formula versus the
smoother taste of New Coke or Pepsi had nowhere to go and hence revolted. An essential
element of a century-old brand had been violated, in this case the taste experience --
without their consent. The putative change in Gap's logo may have been made for good
reasons, but the strategic reason was neither evident to Gap passionistas nor well
communicated to other consumers. Hence, a big pushback. PepsiCo's short-lived change
in its iconic Tropicana packaging a couple of years ago falls into the same category and
was reversed shortly afterward.
It is surprising how often there is confusion over the differences between trademarks and
brands. This confusion exists among the public and often even in companies with strong
marketing skills. A trademark identifies the source of a product and distinguishes it from
the products of competitors. Trademarks also convey a promise of a consistent level of
product quality. Ideally, a trademark is memorable, and can provide differentiating
emotional and functional equities.
Trademarks can take several forms: words or "brand names," such as Starbucks; logos
and designs, such as Starbucks' siren; slogans and taglines, such as Campbell's M'm!
M'm! Good!; product and packaging configurations, such as the shape of Goldfish
crackers.
A brand, meanwhile, is the sum total of brand elements and equities, and in short is the
promise a company makes to its customers. A brand encompasses its trademark, and can
include other brand elements such as logos, slogans, graphic designs and packaging. A
brand also incorporates a wide range of marketing decisions, such as competitive
positioning, target users, and pricing, which influence consumer associations with a brand
and contribute to the constellation of values and imagery, or equities, that the brand
represents.
Today Starbucks wants to expand its strategic vision to include categories beyond its core
coffee, tea and related products, while broadening its distribution channels. It is entirely
appropriate to ensure that all marketing platforms, and all communication elements --
including Starbucks' trademarks -- are aligned against this broadened vision. Based on
publicly available information, the company is not proposing to change the brand
Starbucks coffee in any way. The change is about one of Starbucks' trademarks, namely
its logo of a sea maiden.
Page 2

3. More broadly, Starbucks' evolution provides telling lessons both in corporate leadership
and strategic management of a company's trademarks, usually among its most valuable
assets. One can argue over the aesthetics of the Starbucks siren, but the case for
decoupling the logo from coffee is compelling. Trademarks must be nurtured and
managed strategically. Core elements that convey key brand planks, including visual
equities, need to be maintained so they can recognizably anchor the brand, even as other
elements are updated to provide openings for new growth areas.
Starbucks remains the company's name and principal trademark. Today, the Starbucks
trademark is applied to its major product lines, principally coffee. The siren logo is also a
primary and corporate trademark. Until now, it has been used largely in conjunction with
the core brand, Starbucks coffee. Now, the decision has been made to broaden the
company's strategy to provide a platform for a new generation of products and services.
The siren logo, like Apple's apple or Nike's swoosh, has the ability to play a broader
strategic role: to signal and support a new growth agenda.
Kudos to Howard and his team.
Page 3