What's in a logo?

Logos have their use I guess. They provide a familiarity that can be comforting. I've done a lot of travelling abroad and always find a strange comfort in seeing the BP logo or the golden arches of McDonalds. That said, I tend in general to put more emphasis on quality of a product and when in the UK tend not to be influenced by logos or brand names

How much have they spent on basically removing their company name from the logo? they could probably have spent it on some decent coffee for customers I expect!

Logo's don't encourage me to buy a product, if it's particularly prominent it's usually a guarantee you're paying extra for the name, especially on clothes. I don't want to pay a premium on something that's probably being made in the same foreign sweatshop as other cheaper products, same place & same quality but without the price tag and annoying logo.

The Labour Party ought to redo its logo, some sort of warning sign perhaps? a picture of money being poured down the drain?

Logos don't encourage me to buy a product, but there are a reassuring sign when faced with a choice between a brand you don't know and a brand where you know what to expect- there is comfort in the familiar.

I think the Starbucks brand is strong enough not to be majorly affected by dropping the wording on their logo, BUT I've never understood what the "twin tailed siren" is about, but I do understand what the wording is about. If they wish to diversify the brand, why not just drop the word 'coffee' rather than dropping the well known name!

Very odd decision in my view

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The new Starbucks logo is still recognisable as starbucks as the brain uses visual prompts when recognising anything from food to what not to touch.
The wording is not necessary except possibly in countries where Starbucks is not on every corner.

Logos, easy recognition, I drive past BP signs, fuel more expensive than others, McDonalds as it is disgusting so Logos they have their uses.

Favourite Logos....erm more important things to remember....

Being yet to consume a Starbucks coffee, I guess the logo change will make little difference to my life.

SO said. A good Logo, instantly recognised, is very important and should be tampered with only with much care and a liberal application of advertising money. I would though like a very tight limit imposed on Logo. Name and design copyright. Companies so often abuse their 'ownership' of a name, a recent example being Coca Cola prosecuting a local business for a name of one of their lesser known drinks, and car companies that claim natural winds are their own, and so on.

2. At 11:10am on 06 Jan 2011, Incorrectly wrote:
..The Labour Party ought to redo its logo, some sort of warning sign perhaps? a picture of money being poured down the drain?

Please change the record - this HYS has nothing to do with British politics. Why do so many posters here try to change every debate (no matter how inappropriate) into a party political slanging match?
On topic, Starbucks dropping its name still won't make me shop there - because as far as my tastebuds are concerned, they should have dropped their claim to sell "coffee" years ago.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

A complete waste of time and money that merely adds to product prices.

Even more annoying is when this rebranding extends to the public sector with the constant changes of name, livery, logo etc of schools, councils, government departments etc.

I've lost count of how many times the Board of Trade, Department of Trade, DTI, BIS etc has metamorphosed at enormous taxpayer cost without any benefit!

The logo is very important to any brand. It is a psycological control to advertise a lot of information in a smaller space. An image is very powerful for recovering memories and a logo promotes those memories in support of a product, kinda like a stamp of approval. It requires a lot of money, not to create a logo, but to associate that logo with the brand. And this is the problem.

People who regularly clothes shop will probably know the gap logo, I have no idea and neither will new generations. This is why having the brand name with the logo makes a lot of sense because it promotes your name to newer generations/groups. For this reason I dont understand why any brand would want to remove the name from the logo.

In the last few months I discovered that the tick was nike's logo. I only recognised their footwear because of the name and without it they just look like every other.

I cant see this going well for starbucks in the UK because only their regular customers will associate the logo with the brand. Others may think its promoting an art show somewhere.

Polical parties have a different problem. They can change their logo's all they want and I dont know many who would know or care. But political parties are recognised by colour. The is where I think the green party did well branding their name as a colour, BNP often use the british flag as a background too.

Not really that important...just look at the embarrassing London Olympic logo. The people who commissioned that, paid a lot of money for something a 5 year old could have done, and they accepted it!

Logos are there to remind us of the product, residing in our subconscious in stealth sort of way, that is the first step towards a purchase.
Coca Cola is undoubtedly my favourite; it looks vibrant, happy, smiling confidently.

When is HYS going to learn the difference between News and Publicity?

No 1 speaks a lot of sense. A familiar Hotel chain logo in a strange country can be quite re-assuring.
Logos can be just for recognition (e.g. Shell) or can try and convey something of the brand or strategy (e.g. BP attempt to go green)
They can also fulfill a need in some people to be part of a group or to show off, such as aspirational logos e.g Ralph Lauren on a jumper.
The overall brand is the most important thing, can take years to build and can be destroyed in days. That's because the customer has a big say in the overall brand based on his experience. Do John Lewis have a logo? Not really but we know what the brand name stands for and we keep on shopping there.
My favourite logo is CAMRA, the Campaign for Real Ale, with a logo the shape of a beer glass, because I prefer a decent tasty pint.

I think Starbucks should start putting quotes on their cups.

The first one should say, 'Crikey! This cup of coffee is expensive!'

Logos are incredibly clever - it means that you can identify a brand by pattern and colouring - you don´t even need to have to read.

With Starbucks expanding into other countrys, especially Asia, the Starbucks brand and its association to USA is NOT a very helpful thing, especially with so much hatred of USA government/politics etc & ANYTHING associated with USA.
Removing even the English wording is basically a retreat of association and ultimately allows additives of advertising in any language to suit wherever.

The Union Jack is basically a logo, many UK companys have over many years already dropped it, for essentially the SAME reasons.

Previously the Union Jack was once considered part of a strong national brand image, now it is associated in much of the world with wars against muslims or with British Empire past.

Even in Ivory coast, with such troubles as present, ANYTHING with particular and specific relevence to a particular nation can turn into a target of hatred.

Like so MANY goods/products of today, it is EASIER to expand into certain nations if branded goods have "made in China" or "made in India" etc on them, where such products are MORE accepted than "made in USA" or "made in GB".

There is MUCH politics in business and also MUCH business in politics, as we see from Camerons visits to India etc.

The astonishingly ludicrous thing about 'logo's' is the money dumb and dumber ltd pay for it.

I hereby declare I can do as well or better for £50 each, and within a week of asking.

Alternatively go to a primary school anywhere in the country and get same or better for nothing.

Logos are mainly of importance to "marketing executives" and other useless dross, not to mention "graphic designers" and the rest, who make millions from changing some symbol or other into some other symbol or other and justify it all on the grounds that the new one is "customer friendly" or "conveys more accurately the firm's ethos" or other sheer nonsense. All it means in the end is that, once again, the customers of the business are paying for pandering to someone's ego.

In the public sector these things are unnecessary, but it doesn't stop them wasting our money. There is only one DVLA, or Wigan Council or St. Someone's Hospital but they have to have silly logos and keep changing their "livery" for no valid reason. Our local council has been Wigan Metro, Wigan Council and now, apparently, Wigan Life in the last 20 years. It all costs money, and the latest rebrand involves a direct steal from Liverpool Victoria, in colours and intent. We have to pay for it but we don't want or need it and it doesn't make anyone's life any better, except presumably the fool who was paid to invent it.

I am largely uninfluenced by all this tosh, but I do have a favourite logo - the bullseye of London Transport. Anyone who sees this 'ring with a line through the middle' knows what it means, to such an extent that many town street plans use it to denote a bus station. It's been around over 70 years, too, and you can't be much more successful than that.

When you fail to read you automatically think that you should write, because what else could be the reason I just red a question raising a couple of questions in myself as well? Ideally, I could be able to read. you know, it doesnt seem quite logical to answer a question with a question. But hey, I am not the first one trying this.Before Socrates begins to speak about its method, I am fine with it.

There is something with the starbuck itself, let it be a name or a logo, but why is the logo green? white over green?

Starbucks is a private company and is free to re-design it's logo, at risk of losing some brand recognition. I wonder how many would have recognised the new logo without first knowing that it was the Starbucks logo?

Public bodies etc are different. In these instances spending significant sums of money on re-branding exercises can't really be justified. For example for ministries and government bodies there should be a single "UK Government" logo (such as the Royal coat of arms perhaps) with each department or organisation then adding appropriate wording in a standard typeface. This would do away with all the stupid government department logos which are more-or-less guaranteed to change with the political wind every few years.

"What's in a logo?"

Useful for brand recognition. People will get used to the change. Won't persuade me to buy their coffee though. I always go to Costa Coffee - their coffee tastes much better - IMO of course.

18. At 11:45am on 06 Jan 2011, sinistrality wrote:

The astonishingly ludicrous thing about 'logo's' is the money dumb and dumber ltd pay for it.

I hereby declare I can do as well or better for £50 each, and within a week of asking.

Alternatively go to a primary school anywhere in the country and get same or better for nothing.

---------------------------

You wont get much of an advertising campaign for £50 each + production, costing and so on.

Very few logos say anything about the company/organisation, many are incomprehensible, some are plain silly (like the 2012 Olympic logo).
The quality of goods and services, coupled with intelligent advertising, is what drives sales and brand loyalty. Logos just add to costs, and when they are changed they add more cost plus public confusion.

Will not affect me as I rarely use branded coffee shops, would prefer to support local shops.

Whilst people will pay a premium for a logo, coffee, clothes, cars etc then governments of any persuassion have little to fear from raising "VAT".

My teenagers are currently in the chase the brand loop just hope they grow out of it. Seems that the majority of the clothes are made in the same countries and the only thing that changes is the brand name printed or stitched on. My daughter didn't even want one particular item, despite the obvious modelling, as the tag wasn't readily visible aargh.......

Would not touch Starbucks with a barge pole.

The logo is irrelevant.

Is it just me or is HYS particularly banal today?

1.
Logos are important because they communicate more shortly than brand names and they have to be recognized in a very short time as part of a marketing strategy in an up-tempo world that has not much time to attract the attention of the audience or the clients.
To answer your question: So a brand name is less important than the instant recognisable logo as one graphic element or sign.

An example: The world´s largest US sports company with four letters dropped in the early 1990s the brand name out of the combination logo and brand name. Only the logo appears from that time, just the same as Starbucks did. Things are going to get more simple with no additions at the advertising market.
So the changes at the Starbucks logo is nothing massively new.

2.
The starbucks logo is better than the old logo because the addition by the brand name is not necessary because everyone knows for a long time that it belongs to Starbucks because it appeared in the combination logo and brandname. The Starbucks logo itself is popular enough because it is a worldwide known company. Otherwise this would not work.

3.
My favourite is the spiral logo from the Olympic Summer Games Munich 1972: simple, clear, bright and eye-catching, and not easy to reproduce or to imitate. An alltime graphic masterpiece.

4.
Logos are said to atract positive attention. A popular world sports company with three stripes has that three stripes in its logo and on the products. A simple look and therefore well done.

5.
The London Olympic logo 2012 shows how controversial a logo can be. It attracted attention - but unfortunately more in a negative way.

According to advance technology better design of modern time. they are right to change the LOGO.

Can we have this coffee company in Kandahar Afghanistan for us

I want to try how it taste never tasted.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Logo's have their benefits, brand recognition etc. But I personally choose not to wear products which have logo's on them. Why pay more for a product while advertising the brand for the company for free?
I also go a bit further than that one, if I'm irritated by an advert (such as an opera singing car insurance ad), I won't use the product.

Ad companies have conditioned us for years, the specific colour that Barclays use, the 5 notes that McD's use that make me think "I'm loving it". Logo's are simply there to replace a product with a brand name - how many of you have bought "hoovers" made by Dyson?

It's not new, its a variation. Its probably close enough for people still to identify the brand. Of greater concern are some of the thought processes underlying it.

Whilst its the case that its possible to "stretch" brands there are limits. The world is littered with financial services businesses that assumed incorrectly that because you bank there you're likely to buy insurance , investments and so on there. So just because some people like Starbucks coffee or Stabucks coffee shops does not grant them a God -given right to be successful selling wine, or soft drinks or whatever on the rather tenuous basis that they are all consumable liquids. One hopes they have some sort of research and analysis programme to validate a view about how stretchable their brand is and in what directions.

Where are they planning to use the new logo? On the cups is probably fine on the basis that you just bought a cup of coffee and unless you have the memory of a goldfish you might recall where you bought it. Using it on store Fascias to the exclusion of the brand name would be IMO a huge mistake.

Whilst the new logo is simpler and cleaner than the old it achieves that at the expense of emotion and quality impression IMO. "Does changing a logo work" can't be answered without assessing how well its been done.

The impact and benefit of a logo change is very often massively overstated by those too close to it. Personally, I doubt very much that any new product venture would have been held back by a logo indicating that starbucks do coffee. I imaging that even in some pretty far-flung parts of the globe there is a pretty good understanding that Starbucks means coffee. Its going to take a lot of lawnmower sales ( or whatever) to disentangle that. Its much less of a risk than their Marketing people and senior management imagine, but then its less of a return too.

the name of a brand or a company can lead to many paths on which to travel if and when a need to scrutinise something sinister about what a company or brand is all about,for instance chasing after taxes is one reason for painting a pretty picture of a marketing product aimed at the public to induce sales to a higher level of profit and at the same time dodge the tax man.

Wake me up before you logo!

I think the logo in this case is like a warning sign, whenever I see it I go out of my way to avoid it. Starmucks can put what they like on the outside of their silly goblets but what matters to me is what's inside the cup, in the case of Starmucks it's always the same rubbish. MacDonald's is also useful as their distinctive sign is a good way of knowing where you are when you're a bit hazy! Otherwise I wouldn't think about them! In both cases, at least in Paris, they have WiFi hotspots, always look on the bright side of life!

How important are logos to you?
Would the Senior Editorial Management at BBCNews please get rid of the School children they have posting these questions.
We are up effluent creek without the paddle.
Post questions that are of importance to the British people.
Not this tosh.
Chris Pattern isn't in charge yet.
Or is he?

“7. At 11:23am on 06 Jan 2011, BrimfulOfAshes wrote: Please change the record - this HYS has nothing to do with British politics.”

You are wrong.

Given New Labour's obsession with rebranding and logo's over economic prudence it is 100% on this topic, which is titled 'What's in a logo' in case you have not noticed.

Most HYS are pretty trivial but trying to ensure that Labour never get to drop the UK into near bankruptcy again, assuming we can recovery this time, is important.

Of course Starmucks had "coffee" printed on their goblets so you didn't confuse it with sewage. Now of course everyone knows so they save printing ink and avoid being prosecuted for false representation!

I'm too old to worry about a logo, other than to identify that it is rubbish fast food. (I would use other wording but the mods would not publish them)
You would do better to ask the young as many seem to be blinded by them?

5. At 11:21am on 06 Jan 2011, John Mc wrote:

The new Starbucks logo is still recognisable as starbucks as the brain uses visual prompts when recognising anything from food to what not to touch"

Actually, it's not recognisable to me (other than from it being on this website).

I've never been into a Starbucks in my life, and I couldn't even tell you where the nearest one to here is.

So, in my mind it's a bad move to remove the name from the logo - unless they display the name next to the logo on their cafes. If they have only the logo displayed at their cafes, how would I find it if someone told me to meet them at the Starbucks - the logo is meaningless to me.

Maybe they think they're as famous as McDonalds (most people can recognise them from the big 'M' sign) - but the difference is that the logo is more random, if someone asks me what the McDonalds logo is, I can easily tell them it's a big yellow 'M'. But, how would you describe the Starbucks logo to someone who's never seen it before???

If I saw someone drinking a cup of Starbucks coffee with the new logo on, I'd have no idea where they got it from.

There must be nothing that is news worthy if we are now debating a logo!!

Perhaps we should suggest an appropriate LOGO for our wonderful Condemned government
Arrogant , Self Serving, embarrassment is a bit of a mouthful
but it shortens nicely to ARSE!

Which I think would provide a useful guide regarding what to expect out of this institution.

Is a logo the same as a badge?

I like car logos. Mercedes is special for example.Toyota..as well. I think it is the added value of the artist itself designing the logo. Their desire to make it meaningful. They are putting their soul in it. A well earned logo can make a car precious, very very valuable. Logos are always exciting. I apologize form all designers whose art escapes me at the moment.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

What's in a logo:
The difference between similar products/services which enable your similar product/service to stand out, which equals instant recognition.
I don't like Starbuck's new logo - green on white.
My favorite logo is the Peace Dove - though it stands out and looks peaceful, it just can/t seem to sell its product.
Do logos encourage you to buy the product? No.
What is more important - a brand name or a logo? Neither, it's the quality.
The problem with the Starbucks logo is - what is that green thing? Could be a mermaid; could be a siren. Typically a half-woman is called a Siren - both the bird/woman type and the fish/woman type.
All sirens are in the business of seduction, especially mariners; sirens sing their songs, allure with sex and then kill the beguiled. Good golly, is Starbucks that bad!
Through the years, the Starbuck's siren has had her belly button removed and re-moved. Does she have a belly button now? (No peeking!)
Anyway, I am simply not fond of a green thing on my coffee cup, or any other product Starbucks might sell.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Logos have a simple purpose - brand recognition.

It doesn't matter what language you see it in, the golden arches are a McDonalds restaurant and a red can with a squiggly white stripe down it is Coca Cola.

The only way that brand recognition encourages purchase is if it is also associated with quality or taste and the alternatives are less appealing. I'll happily drink Marinda abroad, instead of Fanta, but would be very wary of an Irn Bru substitute.

So, to summarise, the logo and brand name should be interchangeable (if the logo is successful) and it's the quality of the product that sells it.

Lucky Starbucks will get more popularity by BBC

Finally, a use for media-studies degrees.

I wonder who got the back-hander for planting this 'story'.

The whole point of a logo is to identify a product or manufacturer instantaneously regardless of language or location. If Starbucks want to change their logo, it's up to them. The change is hardly drastic really. Remove the lettering and make the image green. I could have done that for a fraction of the probable cost for them.

I recall my mum telling me that as a small child I could identify stores before I could read their names as I could associate the logos with the company name shown on TV adverts. Proof enough that a good logo can be a great help regardless of whether you're looking for or avoiding the item in question!

Logos are important as they provide instant recognition - assuming that the brand is known. When I was looking for a logo for my business I was very particular about getting the positioning of elements correct; the correct colours and making sure that it was simple enough to be used on various forms of media. If you get it wrong then it can send out the wrong signals.

The change that Starbucks has made isn't that major and therefore won't, in my opinion, change public opinion either positively or negatively. Their products are more important it would be suggested. Shame that the coffee isn't good and that their shops need investing in. The money spent on the logo could have been spent on those things instead.

Until I saw the article this morning on the change I had no idea that it was supposed to be a twin tailed siren. Still not sure what it has to do with coffee....

So far as the High street and much of big business are concerned a familier logo is a sign of mediocrity and expensive products manufactured in Asian sweatshops or grown by poverty stricken farmers. The only winners are the people who dream up these logo's and the marketing twaddle that goes with it.

Can rebrand a logo costing thousands if not millions but cant give our soldiers in Afgan a cup of coffee.
You could use a sticking plaster as your logo Starbucks for all I care. Takes more than a badge to run a quality buisness I'm affraid.

As for the scribbled Conservative tree logo, kinda shows exactly what is going on in Westminster to be frank. Scribbled ill thought out policies, how fitting.

LOL! In my experience, Starbucks would be much better served in spending money on some quality control and minimum service standards. Invariably the 'hot' drinks are not hot at all and are slopped up onto a table by surly or slack-jawed yoofs and we, the stupid British public, are charged well over the odds. For the prices they charge, I expect my coffee brought to my table. Needless to say, after several attempts, I no longer use Starbucks. There are many far superior coffee houses around.

So there are piles of properly really important issues in the world and the BBC has to go into whether 'logos' are important...
For heavens sake, what is it, your 'arts correspondant' run out of bizarre places to visit this week?

If Starbucks wants to come up with a piece of stupid new artwork that will cost it a fortune to implement, ignores its product and ignores its name then it can. The executive that bought into this is no more stupid than the emperor who bought the wonderful new clothes... the executive is probably no more brainy either.

Every now and then there's a logo type quiz goes round from school and I normally get a very low score. I suppose that means logos aren't important to me. I never understand companies that spend millions on their logos. It just seems a sad waste of money.

Although I can recognise logos I am certainly not a sheep and simply buy things for the logo.

As long as a product is fit for purpose I will buy the cheapest that fits my requirement and I am amazed at the number of people that will pay more for a second hand car of given make than they could buy a Skoda for.

28. At 12:04pm on 06 Jan 2011, ARMANI PASHTUN khalik wrote:

According to advance technology better design of modern time. they are right to change the LOGO.

Can we have this coffee company in Kandahar Afghanistan for us

I want to try how it taste never tasted.

**********************************************************************

Tried the airport - can't believe Uncle Sam hasn't made it available

Umm. Can you actually have a logo without a word?

A logo is key to any brand, but it's only small part of a companies overall identity. All corporate materials and client facing media go towards cementing a brand and need to be carefully considered. Brand guidelines have to be created, typefaces, colourways and visual language need to be set in stone.

When people critisize a redisign or brand project, they tend to take a look at the finished product (and in many cases, just the logo) as opposed to the process that's gone into creating it and the myriad of supporting materials that have to be reconsidered and re-structured (print adverts, letterheads, websites, online advertising, television adverts, mobile media to name a few). A massive company such as Starbucks is going to be a huge task for any agancy to tackle, appeasing all board members, managers and shareholders can turn a simple rebrand into a design by comittee nightmare. The sad fact is that the agency involved are often stuck with the less creative, safer option, but at the end of the day; you have to give the client what they want. All us graphic designers can do is use our experience and expertise to advise and point clients in the right direction.

That said, this new logo seems like an obvious direction for Starbucks to move in if they're trying to expand their product base while moving perception away from being 'just a coffee company'. I wouldn't underestimate the work that's gone into producing it though and the consideration that's had to go towards redisigning the companies suporting material and media.

Like a few posters on here I find logos to be a source of comfort when travelling abroad but they also to act as a warning to stay away from other goods.
Don't really care about the changes to the starbucks logo - I never go there. I find their whole ordering/service stressful and impersonal - I much prefer to support my local coffee shop.
GAP is interesting though considering their main clothing lines often carry a huge logo on their front - I suppose they had no other option but to listen to the views of the public or risk a dip in profits. I can't even remember what the replacement logo looked like....
As far as the Tory's go I'm rather fond of their new logo. I do remember the 'public outcry' it caused though but I think that's a reflection on how difficult us humans can find change.
I can't really think of a favourite logo at the moment although I do find myself scouring the supermarket shelves for the loo roll printed with Andrex puppies!I think logos are more likely to make me try a new product from a brand I already trust (yep, I'm a marketers dream) rather than shying away from it (still trying to adjust to Lidl and Aldi!) .

Whenever a company undertakes a new logo design, my immediate thoughts are:

"Haven't the management got more important things to do to generate shareholder value"

54. At 12:45pm on 06 Jan 2011, PipeVVorm wrote:

Can rebrand a logo costing thousands if not millions but cant give our soldiers in Afgan a cup of coffee.
You could use a sticking plaster as your logo Starbucks for all I care. Takes more than a badge to run a quality buisness I'm affraid.

As for the scribbled Conservative tree logo, kinda shows exactly what is going on in Westminster to be frank. Scribbled ill thought out policies, how fitting.

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

Sorry, but what on earth has Starbucks got to do with our soldiers in Afghanistan? Starbucks is a private US company and so has little/nothing to do with British soldiers. Why should Starbucks give a cup of coffee to soldiers? Do you see Cadburies giving a bar of chocolate to soldiers? Oh and before you go on about being an armchair wotnot, I am in Afghanistan (although not a soldier, but a former one).

Not convinced logos serve any useful purpose other than keeping lefty effeminate graphic designers in enough elastic bands for their pony tails.

58. At 12:48pm on 06 Jan 2011, RonC wrote:
Although I can recognise logos I am certainly not a sheep and simply buy things for the logo.

As long as a product is fit for purpose I will buy the cheapest that fits my requirement and I am amazed at the number of people that will pay more for a second hand car of given make than they could buy a Skoda for.


-----------------

Some people buy cars for more than just basic transport. They can be a status symbol of how you're making your way in life. New customers of mine regualrly escort me back to my car so they can assess what others have thought of me by what I'm driving.

I'll still be able to recognise Starbucks, and avoid them in favour of a small independent cafe around the corner - how I detest corporateism (is that really a word?).

How good it would be to rid of the McDonalds, Burger King, Starbucks, Wimpy logos from just about all our high streets and shopping areas - and replace them by locally run and owned small businesses who keep their profits within the community, rather than returning them to faceless shareholders and fiddlers in the City!

Finally, a use for media-studies degrees
--------------
Well it certainly won't get you a job in the Media these are all reserved for Ox-bridge PPE graduates!

Lots of interest in this debate - not!!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Finally, a use for media-studies degrees

---

You seem to be confusing Media Studies with Graphic Design.

Dear BBC,

Can you please tell me and the adoring public out there just how much you are being paid by Starbucks for this fantastic piece of advertising?

Given that you are no doubt earning some form of revenue from Starbucks to host such a spurious HYS when there is so much else going on in the world more worthy of discussion, am I likely as a result to see some form of reduction in the licence fee I pay for the BBC?

60. At 12:53pm on 06 Jan 2011, potatolord wrote:
Umm. Can you actually have a logo without a word?


----

oh, something. I once tried to understand true colourblindness..either there shouldnt be matter or light for colour not to exist.My mind cant buy it.i see now it is similar with logo without a word. A little less expensive perhaps? a little more approachable? I might be trying to trick you, listen to your heart.

"potatolord wrote:

Umm. Can you actually have a logo without a word?
"

Very much so. Logo's come from premises, pub signs, pawn-brokers "balls", barbers poles etc, that were needed in the days before mass literacy.

What do you think of the new Starbucks logo?
Honestly I really don't see why they needed to change it but hey it is their company.
What are your favourite logos? My favorite logos are the ones that make products easily identifiable from a distance.
Do logos encourage you to buy the product? Quality and reputation are what make me buy most products. Brand names are meaningless to me if they are not backed by quality.

More important than my life or the lives of my children.

16. At 11:37am on 06 Jan 2011, RitaKleppmann wrote:
Logos are incredibly clever - it means that you can identify a brand by pattern and colouring - you don´t even need to have to read.
==============================================
This is a good comment.

I think over time logos establish a brand name in your psyche. As Rita implies, take words away and you still know who it is. The daft thing is where an established logo (or brand name) is changed for the sake of modernity - classic examples being BA (dropping the flag for different daubs which had no coherence) and Aviva which took away the well known Norwich Union for the sake of a silly and meaningless palindrome.

66. At 1:05pm on 06 Jan 2011, Mike from Brum wrote:
Some people buy cars for more than just basic transport. They can be a status symbol of how you're making your way in life. New customers of mine regualrly escort me back to my car so they can assess what others have thought of me by what I'm driving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that people genuinely buy into the idea that "they are what they drive" is a tribute to the continuing success of decades of advertising by the automobile industry. And an indication of the inability of many to think for themselves.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

60. At 12:53pm on 06 Jan 2011, potatolord wrote:
Umm. Can you actually have a logo without a word?
====================================
Shell? Volkswagen? WWF? Toyota? Chase? NY Yankees? Rolls Royce?

I don't see the point in a logo. It certainly would not encourage me to buy a product.
As I have the ability to read - I dont need a symbol, especially one that
doesn't make it obvious what the product is

Remember that bit in "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" where a civilization loads all its middle managers, accountants and other petty bureaucrats were loaded into a spaceship and launched off into deep space? Looks like they forgot to send this bunch with them.
Logos and brands are important because they keep the designers and developers away from doing any damage to business and industry by occupying proper jobs.

Also, if it wasn't for these people, who would have left to ridicule? Oh yes: pop stars, politicians, celebrities, sportsmen and royalty. . .

2. At 11:10am on 06 Jan 2011, Incorrectly wrote:

The Labour Party ought to redo its logo, some sort of warning sign perhaps? a picture of money being poured down the drain?

----------------------------------------------------------------

While the conservatives could change there's to a picture of money being poured into the pockets of the rich

74. At 1:26pm on 06 Jan 2011, Richard wrote:
"potatolord wrote:
Umm. Can you actually have a logo without a word?
"
Very much so. Logo's come from premises, pub signs, pawn-brokers "balls", barbers poles etc, that were needed in the days before mass literacy

Nope: I think Potatolord asks a fair question! I can't just remember what the word for parbers poles, pawn-brokers balls etc actually is, but it ain't "logo"!
(learn your Greek).

This modern facination with Logos is pathetic. I am afraid the fact that is newsworthy shows how much thus country backsliding educationally. I can see no real use for them at all, most are dull & unartistic. No logo would make me any more likely to buy anything than if the company just put their name on their product in simple clear script.

It is the product that counts, not the packaging.

I work in branding and find the ignorance displayed here quite laughable. Branding affects peoples' behaviour. If it didn't, it wouldn't exist.

You may think you are smarter and don't believe the brand messaging, but successful companies get into your psyche by having values that resonate with you. Why chose to read the BBC site over another news provider? Because you feel comfortable with it - that, in part is brand.

Unless you permanently wear home-made clothes, shop at farmers markets, don't drive/clean your teeth/always read random newspapers and don't respect what your company does then you can truly say you aren't affected by brands.

A logo is merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to representing a company.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Dont drink coffee so Starbucks means very little to me.As to logos in general I believe people do tend to trust a logo which represents a certain company relating to the image of that company and what it means to the consumer but things move so fast these days that logos dont last very long before companies are bought up and then binned by the competition along with the famous logos.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"WiseOldBob wrote:

74. At 1:26pm on 06 Jan 2011, Richard wrote:
"potatolord wrote:
Umm. Can you actually have a logo without a word?
"
Very much so. Logo's come from premises, pub signs, pawn-brokers "balls", barbers poles etc, that were needed in the days before mass literacy

Nope: I think Potatolord asks a fair question! I can't just remember what the word for parbers poles, pawn-brokers balls etc actually is, but it ain't "logo"!
(learn your Greek).

Did I say they were logos?

A whole new set of mugs to pinch?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

With a quick reference to postings 66 and 78,

Many years ago I was at a Party when the 'game ' of company cars started. The one where salesmen and similar try to prove how important they are by the Brand or Model of Company car they drive (but do not actually own). There were Ford Cortina drivers, Austin ALlegro drivers and Vauxhall drivers, (I did say it was many years ago) . I could not resist dropping into the conversation that my company car was a sports tuned Volvo with fuel Injection, that impressed them. When I added that my next company car was to be a BMW 5 with an Injection engine they were all very impressed.

They were somewhat relieved when I revealed that the cars were signwritten with my employers Logo, 'POLICE'. They were quite simply tools of the trade, a spanner, a desk or a computer terminal in a different shape.

People take too much notice of Logo's and Brand names.

61. At 12:53pm on 06 Jan 2011, Pete Morley wrote:
"A logo is key to any brand, but it's only small part of a companies overall identity. All corporate materials and client facing media go towards cementing a brand and need to be carefully considered. Brand guidelines have to be created, typefaces, colourways and visual language need to be set in stone.
When people critisize a redisign or brand project, they tend to take a look at the finished product (and in many cases, just the logo) as opposed to the process that's gone into creating it and the myriad of supporting materials that have to be reconsidered and re-structured (print adverts, letterheads, websites, online advertising, television adverts, mobile media to name a few)."

Before I read this I thought that re-branding exercises were an expensive waste of time and effort. Now I think they are a sad, expensive waste of time and effort.

Logos give people familiarity towards a product. Changing a logo defeats the purpose of logos: the company pays millions to a design company and loses a load of customers in the process. Having said that, just taking the words away from the Starbucks logo probably won't make much difference to them (apart from the cost of the new design): their existing customers will probably recognise the new one anyway. I'm not a Starbucks customer, and had I been shown the new logo and asked what it was, I wouldn't have had the faintest idea, whereas the old one was obvious.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Companies that re-brand are mugs, unless you're talking about starbucks, in which case, they'll rebrand their mugs.

I just don't like the fact that the insane cost of doing so will be passed on to their customers.

Still, it makes a change from the move from icons and imagery to "just words," which is probably done just because the two most famous brands (Coca-Cola and Rolls-Royce) are of course all words/letters. But then again, they were left untampered with for decades, which is something modern companies seem incapable of recognising.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

There are a handful of companies in the world that use a logo without their name in it (Nike & Shell are a couple) Starbucks may be a little deluded in thinking that they are omnipresent enough to use a symbol or an icon only. Using such a logo will also increase the cost of the share of mind campaigns to reinforce the connection between the brand, the name and the image.
Best of luck to them but it seems like an unnecessary risk.

I think logos are very important as they determine my eating habits when I'm on the road.
If I'm driving on the motorway and I see a sign for the next service station that has on it golden arches or a picture of a southern American gentleman with a small white beard, I suddenly remember I'm not really that hungry!