What's in a Brand? Logos

What's in a Brand?: Is it defined by its Logo? OR even its Font?!

Starbucks' New Logo

Starbucks is still making news in regards to its logo change. Some are critics calling it too radical as it  alters  its trademark style and color combination which it has fought so hard to protect, as well as gets rid of all words going only with its mermaid icon. While I'm quite sad
 to see the distinctive color combination go, on the other hand I quite like the new direction. Starbucks has become such an iconic brand that it no longer needs to mention its name for people to recognize it, the mermaid in itself in quite recognizable and by focusing on it only its able to convey what the brand is. Another plus is that by removing 'coffee' from its name they are no longer restricting their brand to be viewed only as a 'coffee' house (although that is its primary produce) but it acts as a signal that its shifting into a lifestyle brand where it is to be viewed as a product to be consumed for leisure as it shifts into making available other drinks, as well as to be found on supermarket shelves.

While I feel Starbucks' logo change has been successfully carried out, I cannot say the same for the many other logo changes that have been cropping up (and yes there have been many). In these disturbed times, companies often feel that re-branding themselves to appeal to changing audiences always has to start with a change in logo design and I'm not sure why. A logo should only be changed if it provides added meaning, and recently a lot of brands have changed their logo design to no additional advantage, and even to an extent where it can be harmful to them. A few examples include: NBC, Seattle's Best Coffee, Kraft Foods and of course GAP. All of these have removed the distinctiveness of their logos and in such the distinctiveness of their brands. For eg: NBC's peacock symbolized that it was the first to offer color and sure it may not be relevant now, but it meant something and based on it, they were able to build strong brand. Ok so it may not have any value at the moment, but what does removing it achieve?....Nothing....!

Nokia New font & old font

Some companies like Nokia are even going so far as to change their font in order to "re-brand". Sure a font is important...but not when its one of the few (or only) changes made to help keep a brand afloat. Also it does not help when you can't tell the difference between the old and new fonts...unless you look really really hard. Nokia was good, Nokia was great! and we have all owned a Nokia at some point or another, but it is my personal belief that they need a lot more to help the brand rather than just a negligible font change. The main reason Nokia lost out was because they could not keep up so I'm going to wait and see what else they have up their sleeve as part of their re-branding strategy.

On special mention, I have to give a heads up to Lacoste who are trying to protect their logo and quite literally. Lacoste is a supporter of the 'save your logo' project which aims to encourage companies to support endangered species which act as a logo. A commendable project which not only does good but also says a lot about a brand and its commitment, and everyone wins!