Brand Relationship Development  – The Good, The Bad, and The Good Again     

Lately we’ve seen a plethora of logo changes from major national brands. Tropicana, GAP, PUR, Starbucks, Seattle’s Best, Caribou Coffee, Holiday Inn, and the YMCA have all created new logos. Unfortunately these new logos are not always welcomed. Tropicana and GAP’s new logos were so poorly received that the companies have already reverted back to the old designs. So why all the changes?





Think about Apple. Chances are you love them or you hate them, and that’s a whole lot better than just “liking” them. “Like” is a very weak emotion (although Facebook may disagree). A strong brand has passion connected to it. How about Starbucks? Is their coffee really any better than any other coffee shop? Probably not, but after years of Starbucks in the morning their patrons have an emotional attachment to the company that is a part of their daily routines. It makes sense that if something so simple, but so central to the core of the brand changes—like the logo—that there would be a strong reaction.

So why is everyone so quick to scrap the logo they’ve been building equity (and more importantly passion) in for years? Logo changes are typically made to either reinvigorate a tired brand or to appeal to a new set of customers. Starbucks, certainly not a tired brand, redesigned their logo to support a product mix growing beyond just coffee. At the same time the new logo is said to appeal to the Asian market to which Starbucks is trying to engage. While that’s all fine and good, their loyal customers who have been made Starbucks part of their daily routine and have formed that emotional bond are up in arms. Bear in mind that to fully implement a logo change requires millions upon millions of dollars, not just to pay for the design itself, but to pay for all the new signage and website integration, among other things. Is it worth it?

Starbucks’ red headed step child—Seattle’s Best—redesigned their logo after picking up major additions to its distribution channel, but the new simplified logo looks cheap. Did the marketers get too excited when they added Burger King, Subway, and AMC Entertainment to their list of vendors? Why make your brand less differentiated and more like Folgers (with a higher price tag)?

The YMCA’s decision to change the logo they’ve been using since 1967 was the biggest surprise to me. Sure, I’ll concede that it probably is a “tired” brand, but does throwing away a nearly 45 year old logo and replacing it with a logo in which you want customers to buy into “the many colors reflect the vibrancy and diversity of our communities and activities” really help?

The logo changes (and subsequent changes back) by Tropicana and GAP were the biggest disasters. Just four days after GAP’s new logo came out; they reverted back to their traditional “Blue Box” logo. After Tropicana’s sales dropped by 20%, they reverted back too. What does the lack of staying power behind the new logos indicate?

Starbuck’s had a pretty clear goal behind their change—to aid their planned product mix expansion. With that specific goal in mind, we probably won’t see Starbucks revert back their old logo even though their loyalists are (vocally) perturbed. Like most things in business, a logo change needs a specific goal (not just to get more sales) and without that specific goal, it is much easier to give up on a logo change the way GAP and Tropicana did.

Holiday Inn’s new logo makes some sense because they were largely viewed as tired and old before the brand overhaul and the new logo was well executed, but the bottom line remains the same. If you think you can totally change your logo without any backlash, you may have a passion problem, and if you think you can always change it back you have a goals problem. To all the marketers out there changing logos whenever they get bored…get a hobby!