Five silly reasons to hate Starbucks’ new logo

1. It’s different.
You’d think this kind of knee-jerk reaction would be limited to amateurs, but even Laura Ries writes, “when it comes to branding, the best kind of change is usually no change at all.” Really? Companies change, market conditions change, competition changes, consumers and their preferences change. The world changes. But logos shouldn’t?

2. They got rid of “Starbucks.”
CoreBrand contends that “dropping the Starbucks name from their logo will only serve to confuse consumers who are not as familiar with the company” (posted on Branding Strategy Insider). Seriously? Starbucks has 16,000 stores. Nike, Apple, McDonald’s and others have dropped their names, and seem to be ok.

Besides, this will aid the company’s global expansion efforts by focusing on a universal design rather than a language-specific name. “Starbucks,” or a localized name like “星巴克,” can still be printed nearby, like on the opposite side of the cup.

continue reading…

Daddy, do fake brands come from fake branding agencies?

Discovered this firm the other day and couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw their website. Landor, meet your made-in-China doppelganger.

JundoBrand homepage

Landor homepage

Is there some formal connection between these companies that justifies such blatant copycatting? Maybe, in which case this post is meaningless, and I probably owe JundoBrand an apology. But so far I haven’t found any connection (and if there is one, shouldn’t they mention it somewhere?).

I don’t think I need to explain the problem(s) I see with a branding firm simply copying a competitors’ look and feel so completely. Not to mention the support this gives to the stereotype that China is better at manufacturing copies of things than creating anything original…I mean if a branding firm can’t even try to make itself an original, we’re in pretty dire straits. I’m surprised they’re not called “Lundor,” or better yet, “Slandor.”

I’ve already contacted Landor to see if I’ve missed something here. If so, I owe you an apology, Jundo. If not, anyone know the Chinese for “cease and desist”?

Over-complicating the simple and oversimplifying the complex

I’ve been doing some competitive research lately, and for once it’s not for a client. It’s for my own company (the one that now employs me), which means I’m examining brand consulting firms and other shops that do basically what we do but maybe call it something different. (Which, by the way, is a plague in this industry—an industry that demands its clients communicate clearly, and yet insists on using nebulous terms interchangeably and coming up with proprietary “processes” that are little more than trademarked names for the same thing all their competitors do. But we can talk about that some other time.)

I looked at fourteen companies in total, including Landor, Interbrand, Futurebrand, The Brand Union, Lippincott, Wolff Olins, Prophet, Siegel+Gale, Added Value, BrandLogic, and four smaller, Asia-based agencies. I chose these firms based on

continue reading…

The authenticity of 9/11

I just read Landor’s press release about the identity they created for the National September 11 Memorial & Museum. This is one of the more somber identity assignments imaginable, and I think they’ve done a nice job.

And, for the most part, the press release does a good job of explaining the rationale behind the design (although I was surprised it didn’t mention the blue 11’s similarity to a ‘pause’ icon, which is a potentially interesting message). But one word in the press release rubbed me the wrong way. Here’s the line:

continue reading…

Has brand positioning been repositioned?

[Originally published this on B2B Brand Debate, where it got some comments including one comment from Al Ries himself.]

Before Al Ries and Jack Trout wrote their seminal book “Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind,” David Ogilvy—one of the true Mad Men—set the stage for their thesis, stating “It takes a big idea to attract the attention of consumers and get them to buy your product.” Ogilvy’s “big idea”—one that reflects the qualities of the brand and differentiates it from competitors—is Ries and Trout’s “position.” A quick glance at the websites and whitepapers of today’s leading branding firms suggests that elements of this definition remain intact. They speak of “relevant differentiation in the marketplace” (Landor) and ensuring that customers “can tell the brand apart from others” (Interbrand’s Brandchannel.com). Some experience in the world of branding firms and a look at the work posted on their sites, however, reveal that definitions and deliverables don’t always align.

continue reading…

Somewhat ridiculous: Syfy

It's been un-geekified

Landor has renamed the Sci Fi Channel. The new name? “Syfy.” I assume it’s homophonic with “SciFi.” Reasons for the name change, according to a TV Week article and a few blog posts, include:

1. A desire to create a “more open and accessible and relatable and human-friendly brand.” – Dave Howe, president of the Sci Fi Channel
2. Disassociate the channel with “geeks and dysfunctional, antisocial boys in their basements with video games and stuff like that.” – TV historian Tim Brooks, who helped launch Sci Fi Channel when he worked at USA Network
3. Make the name more “ownable,” since there are “hundreds of sci-fi Web sites and sci-fi publications.” – Dave Howe
4. To stay connected to the channel’s “heritage and the track record of success.” – Dave Howe

continue reading…