Starbucks Logo Evolutions

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/weekinreview/09heller.htm?_r=2

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid693388141001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAGAdjh4~,FRd2Oughfq_2Rm5WN9p7Ml_B-WFyK2zj&bclid=710858828001&bctid=737153501001

As I commented in my previous posts, the relevance of innovation in product design and our opinions about it are subjective. This is another example application of innovation, where Starbucks is changing its logo due to changes in its products. From only selling coffee, they grew to offer even more food and merchandise so they decided to evolve their logo: by removing "Starbucks Coffee" and leaving only the mermaid. It's not a huge change; it keeps being a stamp shape, green circle, with the same picture inside. This proves how proud and self-confident they are about their company, believing that only the mermaid icon will be enough for people to recognize the new logo as STARBUCKS. In short, they are not afraid to change their logo because they know Starbucks is a strong company regardless of these modifications as millions of people consume their products everyday.

My Movie Poster

A pretty lady, a bald evil man, and a cool guy with aviator sunglasses and a gun. What else does it need?

... I also had an idea for a scary movie...

Learning how to make a movie poster

Photoshop tutorial: Make a reflection!

http://www.onlyphotoshop.com/tutorial/make-mirror-effect-with-a-text-in-photoshop-cs3/363/

My functional product

My non-functional product

About the NY Times article...

We’re constantly receiving multiple messages from our environment. They are communicated in different ways, one of them being design. The NY Times article refers to the confusion that can result when the design of a traffic signal has not been thought through so that the importance of the message is conveyed. Clearly, the person in charge of designing the new traffic signal has not evaluated the impact of the elements in the design, not even if it is right to the eyes of the receiver. The design has caused a different result than expected. It didn´t perform the function for which it was conceived.

Similarly, and based on the idea of the need for innovation to continue as part of a market (or "innovate or die" as we say in Spain) UPS or Citroën companies chose redesign their logo. In the author´s eyes, not a very good job, possibly damaging the image that the companies did have. I do not share this opinion, since Citroën worked on the new logo and grill design in tandem, even placing the new mark where it was traditionally. This is how a logo design remains in line with the actual designs of their new vehicles, which I think is a very good approach. (See images below)

In summary, the definition of good or bad graphic design, or functionality, can sometimes be subjective and dependent on the eye of who's evaluating, but it is quite clear that a product's value or image, can be changed by its design.