I already mentioned that I don’t like Starbucks as much as other coffee brands, but it’s a good example to start from and to explain my thoughts on this topic.
Pretty simple stuff.
I would like to answer on your questions which I will do by referring to what you wrote.
1.“What about complex logos”
I think complex logos just are too difficult to think about. People won’t even try to think about the company or the products. More importantly, a complex logo is difficult to remember, and that’s certainly not what big company’s want if they create a logo. A logo with a lot of clutter around it just isn’t a pretty sight. Moreover, it is difficult to reproduce. To conclude, I think people don’t want a bunch of geometric shapes, simple simply is better. Take a look at this picture to have a clear example: these are the top 10 most valuable corporate logos.
Shocking simple, right?
2.“What if you see that new logo 10 times or more? You will also, automatically associate it with Starbucks without thinking about it. You thought once about it, some twice or more but at the end you will just associate it with Starbucks, without being creative or without thinking about it. You will end up in the same ‘brain-lazy’ thing as before.”
Brand recognition in fact takes some time. Some studies even state that customers have to see a logo up to three(!) times (or even more) before they will remember the logo. With this new logo, Starbucks has to try to have a sort of an ‘instant impact’ to grab the customer’s attention. (Not that difficult I guess because it is discussed all over the world).
The thing here is: the thinking has already done its work from the minute people see the new logo. It’s not necessary to constantly think about the company and the products when we see a logo. People sure have other things to do, but once customers thought about the new logo and the change in the Starbucks strategy, they will never forget about it.
Simply put, (damn, I really think I’m ironically using the word “simply” a bit too much here) in my opinion, the new Starbucks logo will be equally successful as the old ones, just because it is already in our subconscious ( by constant exposure) and because so many people are discussing it right now.
3. “Most of the clutter which has been removed in newer, minimalistic versions of logos often has a meaning.”+ 4.“I’m not stating that everybody does this, but neither does this happen in your case, that people always make connections with the brand. Some just see a “green picture”, not a “green picture which represents Starbucks”.”
In my eyes, a logo doesn’t have to capture directly what the company does or creates. This happens more often than not. Let’s have a look at these examples:
McDonald’s, you see no hamburgers but golden arches. The Adidas logo has nothing to do with sporting clothes, just like the Nike swoosh. The Apple logo. It’s an apple, sure, but does it sell fruit? Don’t think so. It’s often better to have a logo that’s detail less, a logo that can be adapted to whatever direction the company takes. Just like Starbucks in this case. I agree with you on the fact that if logos need to be deciphered, or have a ‘history’ (like Starbucks) there’s probably little chance that it will communicate ALL the essence and the history of the company to ALL the customers. Of course you will reach a lot of customers; otherwise that logo just wouldn’t be used.
Back to Starbucks now
The twin-tailed mermaid or Siren has been in Starbucks logo from the very beginning, as you can notice in the first wooden-brown logo. The relationship between Starbucks & the worldwide known Siren hasn’t changed today. She is the heart of Starbucks, its muse you could say. On the other hand, Starbucks should keep in mind that its logo should appeal to their customers, and due to this, the new logo should be created with them in mind. (Which they surely did I think).
Like @tijs_d also commented, withdrawing the text shows confidence (“Why put text? Everyone knows us”) and brand equity. I more than agree with that. The idea here is to stand out in a cluttered marketplace; Starbucks has to dare to be different than its competitors. Take a look at the Costa Coffee logo when you are in London for example. It’s very similar to Starbucks’ logo. Kind of misses the point, no?
Removing those words gives Starbucks a new range of fresh opportunities. A possibility to think beyond coffee and more importantly: to change.Don’t you agree with me on the fact that it’s a bit weird to use the word “coffee” in your logo, if you sell so much more than that? If you take a good look at their range, it is logical that they drop those words in the new logo. Nowadays, Starbucks will offer other products as well. Their new brand identity will allow them to be flexible in the future with innovations and new channels of distribution to serve their current (and new) customers even better.
I know that there are a bunch of people in this world who will say that they don’t like minimalism in logos (or packing). However, this is not something about “right” or “wrong” as you already mentioned yourself. We both have our own different visions & tastes on the same things. Let’s conclude by saying that our minds just don’t think alike.
But that’s a good thing. Otherwise, the world would just be a big boring place, right?