When Starbucks announced recently that it was removing the text – Starbucks Coffee – from its logo, I was a bit surprised.  Even understanding the intent to broaden the appeal of the brand beyond its coffee roots, I’m still left scratching my head.  It’s not the intent that I question, but the execution – i.e. the resulting wordless logo. 

As an infrequent Starbucks customer, maybe I’m just not familiar enough with the iconic sea nymph that has been surrounded by the bold Starbuck wordmark all these year.  I can’t say that I’d have been able to identify the brand if I’d seen the sea nymph logo on its own, without someone telling me whose brand it was.  Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of a logo?  If I can’t associate it with the brand, then how is Starbucks going to woo me with the new experiences (products) they are trying to create as they broaden their horizons?  

If their logo (and brand) has no equity (or familiarity) with me, then have they missed out on the opportunity they are trying to create in giving their logo a facelift?  If anything, there is strength and power in the Starbucks wordmark – its recognizable font and green colour.  I understand the desire to take a page out of Nike’s or Apple’s book by dropping the wordmark part of the logo, but those brands (in my opinion) had much more brand equity when they did this.  More importantly, they also had simple, powerful and readily identifiable icons that became their logos.  I personally don’t see this in Starbucks’ case.  Is it just me?  The branding experts seem to have indicated otherwise.  I guess time will tell.