Starbucks Remove Breasts from their Logo

Recently, as I was waiting in line at the local Seattle based Java-Giant, I overheard two customers arguing about the Starbucks® logo. Is it a siren or a mermaid? The current logo doesn't give enough visual information, as one customer pointed out, but the original logo was a creature with the upper half of a woman and a split fish tail—a mermaid by his reckoning. The other customer pointed out that Starbucks refers to the image as a siren. Could they be wrong about their own corporate logo? The argument was lively enough to perk the interest of other customers, and soon various bits of interesting information came up, including reference to an online debate about the nature of mermaid sexuality and, specifically, regarding the reproductive organs of Disney's Ariel. I, myself, did not join in this debate but merely kept within earshot, considering the price of a latte well worth this synchronistic field research. Much in the same way that Mancunians come over all faint when you talk about Man United's logo losing the word 'Football Club'. Which of course it isn't anymore....

Anyway, as some readers may know, Starbucks had to change their corporate logo because some consumers found the suggestive split tail of their topless siren too lurid and sexually suggestive. A simplified logo was introduced, hiding the siren's breasts under waves of hair, and that in turn was cropped and enlarged so the split in the siren's tail would no longer show. The only indication now that the female icon is a sea creature is in the wavy lines, which originally were part of the representation of the two tails.

An interesting postscript in the on-going argument of traditional logos vs modern evolution. Relevance is the key, and as long as the logo reflects exactly where your company is right now, as well as where it has been, then maybe that £50K re-branding project may not be necessary. See also my blog on BT and comments from when I was part of the team that designed their new identity.

Recently, as I was waiting in line at the local Seattle based Java-Giant, I overheard two customers arguing about the Starbucks® logo. Is it a siren or a mermaid? The current logo doesn't give enough visual information, as one customer pointed out, but the original logo was a creature with the upper half of a woman and a split fish tail—a mermaid by his reckoning. The other customer pointed out that Starbucks refers to the image as a siren. Could they be wrong about their own corporate logo? The argument was lively enough to perk the interest of other customers, and soon various bits of interesting information came up, including reference to an online debate about the nature of mermaid sexuality and, specifically, regarding the reproductive organs of Disney's Ariel. I, myself, did not join in this debate but merely kept within earshot, considering the price of a latte well worth this synchronistic field research. Much in the same way that Mancunians come over all faint when you talk about Man United's logo losing the word 'Football Club'. Which of course it isn't anymore....

Anyway, as some readers may know, Starbucks had to change their corporate logo because some consumers found the suggestive split tail of their topless siren too lurid and sexually suggestive. A simplified logo was introduced, hiding the siren's breasts under waves of hair, and that in turn was cropped and enlarged so the split in the siren's tail would no longer show. The only indication now that the female icon is a sea creature is in the wavy lines, which originally were part of the representation of the two tails.

An interesting postscript in the on-going argument of traditional logos vs modern evolution. Relevance is the key, and as long as the logo reflects exactly where your company is right now, as well as where it has been, then maybe that £50K re-branding project may not be necessary. See also my blog on BT and comments from when I was part of the team that designed their new identity.