The new logo is growing on me... I'm not sure if it's just because I'm getting used to it or becuase I was surprised (and almost disappointed) to get a cup with an old logo today.

I work for Starbucks, and word through the corporate grapevine was that it was confusing for consumers to look at say, a tin of tea or Starbucks ice cream, that didn't contain any coffee yet was emblazoned with "STARBUCKS COFFEE". They have to put a tiny disclaimer on all these things to clarify that it didn't actually have coffee in it. So it makes sense as a form of simplification.

I can't say I like the look though; a while back we received an order of cups that had been misprinted so there were elements of the logo that were missing, and it looked like the new logo. It just looks incomplete to me. I love the old original logo; I think they should revert to something similar (though maybe minus the oh-so-frightening nipples), especially given the renaissance of all things classic and vintage that's been going on for the past few years.

Once a brand is as big as Starbucks they shouldn't mess with their identity. I learned about logos in college and one of the things they talked about was the Starbucks logo. My teacher hated there first two logos and Starbucks had to change it because too many people seen inappropriate imagery in it. I do like their new logo but maybe only as a secondary logo to use on a napkin or something but to change their primary logo is odd. Could you imagine if Coke-a-Cola or McDonalds changed their logo! That just wouldn't fly.

I was thinking about this post when I went in to Starbucks this morning... And then I thought about something else: when did they stop printing those fun "As I See iIt" stories on the back of the cups?

@Spotty According to the reports I've read, making the Siren their focal point is an homage to their Seattle roots (proximity to the ocean--the mermaid, you follow). I get that. But I still don't really care for it.

I found GAP's experiment to be a much stronger change and made less sense. Their former-now-current-again logo was/is minimalist enough and they weren't married to one product line (ie. it wasn't "The GAP jeans" or whatever).

I love how the reasoning has to do with their move away from non-coffee products. The reports are using their frappuccino and instant-brew products as examples. Dudes - those are coffee drinks too! Breakfast sandwiches, supposedly? Haven't turned up at my local Starbucks.

So I'll live with this change and am okay with it. Just not remotely inspired nor excited by it.

I likes the old one from the 90's. The new logo is just blah, like others said, looks unfinished. I hope they change it back, just like GAP did with their hideous new logo that they changed quickly.

The symbolism in their lady logo is so drippy (to me). Fish flank the sides and the lady's locks appear to also mimic rivers/streams. This suggests they are environmentally friendly. The crown on top of her head resembles the Sydney Opera House - not sure what that is supposed to symbolize. What else do you guys see?

That's actually a good idea Spotty. The 1992 design is recognized in countries all over the world, changing it too much is just messing with a good thing.

Why don't they just keep the 1992 design and just remove the "COFFEE"? The idea is that they ware more than just coffee now so they didn't want to be labeled as such.

I agree as well. This logo just looks unfinished to me...