Fishburn Hedges

06.01.2011

When reading the news about the new Starbucks logo today, my first thought was to wonder what they will do with the old coffee cups (I’ve messaged them via Twitter…awaiting a reply). But my second question was, whether in the world of instant judgements and commentary, introducing a new logo has now become a high risk activity for a corporate?

Cosmetic change is rarely popular when it first appears – just think of all the complaints that always follow when the BBC updates it weather forecast graphics. Familiarity seems to breed comfort rather than contempt. But in the past a logo change would perhaps generate a few days of negative coverage in trade press and maybe a few papers, and then the news agenda would move on and the new look would gradually become accepted. Now the ability to communicate instantly, publicly and vociferously means that any CEO and marketing director must have the stomach for a barrage of criticism on a totally different scale, even if the logo change is well explained, logically and on any rational level, not that controversial. 

A quick look at the Starbucks Facebook page confirmed exactly the response I expected to see - positive voices are few and far between with many quick to draw the parallel with Gap. Surely 'HATE, HATE, HATE' is an over-reaction? Interestingly, where the people behind the business have more freedom to respond, such as the Darcy Willson-Rymer’s (UK MD) own tweets, there is a far more balanced dialogue.

So is this type of reputational risk still worth taking? The answer probably lies in the internal culture of the organisation making the change. If the senior team are happy to be a social media punch bag for a few days, or even a week or two, then they can weather the storm and emerge the other side with a logo that will serve them well going forward. However, if the decision to change the logo was difficult internally, then those who were not keen to see it happen are likely to seize on the criticism as an opportunity to re-state their position which may lead to a humiliating climb down.

For Starbucks specifically, overall this seems to be a risk worth taking. It probably has broad enough shoulders for the criticism and should come through largely unscathed. I will follow the story with interest, and look forward to hearing what is happening to the mugs.

Posted by Fiona Thorne