Starbucks may be at least partially responsible for the resurgence of coffee culture in London and all over the UK. With only dismal options available in most areas, the introduction of Starbucks’ variety of hot and cold treats took off. However, as soon as local competition popped up, the company began seeing fewer and fewer customers. While the product and the locations remained relatively standard, many people were wooed by companies with more local flavour. However, Starbucks intends to revive their flagging UK brand with a ‘Heritage’ rebranding that is led by changes to the appearance of their store locations.
This down home feeling is already a key part of the Starbucks brand in the US. Long before it was a corporate giant, Starbucks was a hip, local hangout in trendy Seattle. This influence has infused the brand in the US even as the company grew far beyond a small local shop. However, this brand has fallen flat in the UK, where Starbucks has never had a presence as a small boutique.
To combat their corporate image, Starbucks is reverting back to their original US logo design, a brown circle enclosing a double tailed mermaid that is reminiscent of the nautical company name. The brown is definitely earthier than the current green palette, and showing the entire mermaid rather than the small cameo shown on the modern logo design will give insight into the brand’s origins. Instead of the current bland furnishings, the company will dress its locations with antique pieces bought from small European markets, with each chain having a unique blend of decor that is relevant and appropriate for the area.
With 750 locations all over the UK, Starbucks has good reason to care about their British brand. However, massive size of the operation may make any attempts to appear local and small seem laughable. Authenticity is not something that can be bought. However, these changes may make the Starbucks experience more pleasant and less generic for the customer, which is bound to pay off.
One key brand aspect that this facelift seems to neglect is the quality of the coffee. This sole aspect can create a hard core following or scare away just about everyone. Many coffee drinkers are visiting local shops not just for the local brand, but for a superior cup of coffee as well. Starbucks may be harming their company by taking the focus off the main product.
Whether this brand overhaul pays off depends on how well the changes resonate through the rest of the Starbucks brand. The new brand will promise the experience of a local coffee shop, so if the complete experience, including the decorations, the service, the ambience, and the actual coffee, deliver on this promise, it is sure to revive the company’s profit margins. If, on the other hand, Starbucks is offering the same end product in a prettier package, it will only disappoint and alienate their fan base. Only time can tell if the company is willing to put in the effort to truly change their locations, or if the difference is merely a cosmetic one.
Related posts:
Starbucks Coffee. Still a bit of a branding mug?
Starbucks has decided to modify aspects of its visual identity (name / logo) and in-store brand experience. The name Starbuck’s Coffee has been dropped to leave the current logo of a siren (errr, that’s just a mermaid to you and me). The famous Starbucks mugs are to be replaced by bone China no less. Starbucks made these changes because Starbucks it wants to expand its brand’s presence in groceries (where it already sells tea and ice creams) whilst responding to increasingly sophisticated coffee consumers and stiff high street competition.
Wavelength’s view? From a visual side this branding heavy weight may have taken three steps one once. Removing the name, the word coffee and the logo. Bad move. If the brand wants to spread its brand wings beyond coffee removing the word “coffee” from the name / logo makes sense. Not many people say I’ll have a Starbuck’s coffee now. The word coffee is redundant and in Starbuck’s case is strategically restrictive.
Two issues are of note……
First, why remove the name Starbucks? The brand equity surrounding this name is huge ($3,339m according to Interbrand’s 2010 survey). Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Second, when you look at the logo can you honestly say that you ever paid any attention to it? Probably not. Closer inspection of the logo begs the question “what does it mean?” Strong logos are metaphors for meaning. They convey a concept, promise or deeper meaning and ‘work’ for the brand in this way. Citi bank and the umbrella indicating protection is a classic example. I do wander what the Starbuck’s Siren is intended to signify. Now the text has gone the logo will have to work harder to convey the brand concept. Much harder. We wonder if it works at all. Starbucks should have phased out the word ‘coffee’, established the brand and its name in new markets using its current visual identity. It is debatable if the name Starbucks should ever be phased out given its equity. It if is this still leaves the problem of a logo which appears to have very little metaphorical meaning. It leaves me thinking. What’s the brand concept and how does this logo convey that. Answer. Don’t know.
However, it’s not all doom and gloom. Starbuck’s clearly understands the role of other tangible cues as a part of delivering its brand experience. This is why it’s phasing out the mugs. Yes, they may remove themselves from that homely feel so cleverly created by the sofas, papers and scrumptious cakes. If they want to go slightly up market I suspect similarly conspicuous changes will happen in their outlets. Modifications to art, menu and music may all be examples of how the brand experience is taken up market.
Final comment. The re-appointed Starbuck’s CEO, Donald Shultz says this is a “meaningful update”. I just wonder if it’s an exercise in explicit management control.
Lets watch this space and hope Starbuck’s isn’t another Gap waiting to happen. It may mean the Starbucks mugs can still be found elsewhere.