Seattle's Best - new logo
Whatever happened to the distinct, strong brands? Will someone please tell me? It’s feeling more and more like a game of how low can you go to appeal to the masses. Granted Seattle’s Best is owned by Starbucks and the brand will be coming to a Burger King, Subway and movie theaters near you but did that mean to translate the brand’s identity in this way - oversimplified to the point of barely being recognizable? You dipped my Target into your blood bank.
So, I admit, the original Seattle’s Best logo was dated, as was the brand overall. But, at least the old logo had some history and recognition. It wasn’t in a circle. It didn’t have a tear drop. And, since when is coffee red?
What’s the consumer supposed to take away from this new and improved logo? Simple. Generic. Regular. Bland. Red coffee? And how does this reflect on the Seattle’s Best brand in general? With the shift to a broader scope of consumers and to potentially compete with the likes of Dunkin’ Donuts, positioning Seattle’s Best as the brand to go that mile versus Starbucks makes complete sense, but the way the Seattle’s Best brand is perceived is what will make or break this business decision. You might not like the coffee, but at least Dunkin’ Donuts has a huge, loyal following. Does anyone drink Seattle’s Best? Would you now?
If mediocrity was the goal then ding ding ding, we may have a winner. But brands that settle for mediocre tend to get that mediocrity reflected upon their products and consumers wind up walking on by. Hey you, Ms. Consumer. We know you want that cup right about now. How about a tall, steaming hot cup of average. Doesn’t that hit the spot? Mediocre doesn’t even get you to second best. It’s not even challenger status. It’s barely…there.
Starbucks has their own brand to maintain so I’ll cut some slack that adding a new brand to the mix makes their job slightly more work, but if they plan to be successful they need to look at a different brand architecture that allows the growth of the brands independently. Give Seattle’s Best the distinction that at least position’s it against the competition. Heck, make Dunkin’ Donuts run for their money.
It’s just a sad day when commonplace rules the roost. When you don’t stand for something, it makes it very difficult to compete on anything other than price. And competing on price turns the brand into a commodity. No business wants to be there. So, will all the distinct, strong brands out there please stand up? I’d like to buy you a cup of joe.
Kim, your post reminds me of the Voltaire quote, “The best is the enemy of the good.”
Seattle’s Best new branding may be “good” in the sense that is screams, “coffee you’ll be satisfied with” but, to your point, fails to captivate and inspire excellence – or what Voltaire refers to as “the best.”
You’re right on re: the Target reference. Currently, its coffee emporiums are privatized through the Starbucks brand with which we’re all familiar. But I see this generic, red emblazoned, circular logo grabbing Target’s attention.
Thanks for holding the Mad Men (and women) accountable.
Steve @enthused
Thanks Steve. You said it, “inspiring excellence.” If Seattle’s Best is simply average then do they strive for average in their brand deliver as well? Average coffee. Average service. Average customer satisfaction. And that to me, is sad. To add another quote from Horace, “Mediocrity is not allowed by poets…” Nor should it be allowed by businesses either.
It would be interesting to know what the real motivations were behind the logo change. It does seem odd that they’d go through the trouble. Agreed, after seeing the logo I immediately thought Target (I’m sure the Target Trademark attorneys are all abuzz). I’m not a brand expert so it’s hard for me to speak intelligently on such matters. Speaking as a consumer, I’m less concerned about the look and feel of the logo as I am concerned about the quality of the product. If the coffee tastes good and the price is right then I’m likely to continue buying the coffee. Also, I’m likely to associate the new brand or logo with that consumer experience. Just my 2 cents.
Hi Kim,
Thanks for introducing me to the new logo of Seattle’s best. when say “You dipped my Target into your blood bank” ,I can see that! literally.
As far as Dunkin Donuts, ok, well, yes, I like what the brand is doing marketing wise, but the one and only time I drank their coffee, I had to tweet about it.It was bot good, and I am not a gourmet coffeee drinker.
I love that question, are you a brand or a commodity! You are giving them food for thoughts and hopefully, they will rethink the branding exercise.
KC.
Thanks Karima-Catherine. Many companies don’t think about the positioning of their brands in the marketplace in terms of distinction. Not many will answer “We’re the cheapest XYZ.” Some can play the low-cost leader but it’s always a price game. Company’s that distinguish themselves on price are relegated to commoditization and really need to discover what their core market distinction is to compete and become a brand leader.
Hi Andrew. It’s less about the logo and more about the perception of the brand. Identity helps build that perception but it’s the overall delivery of the brand and that includes the taste of the coffee. The service when you buy it. How you are greeted or not when you walk in the door. How clean the coffee shop is. If your order is delivered correctly and promptly. And what is delivered needs to track back to what’s promised. Based on the stake Seattle’s Best has set in the ground, they’ve hung their hat on being mediocre. Not too hot and not too cold. Not too good and not too bad. Just…basic. Where’s the brand leadership in that?
Right, that’s what I see: the Target brand, slightly modified. In an instant, premium refined class and excellence is gone altogether, replaced by an image of a price-conscious consumer that buys their coffee at the same store they buy their toilet paper.
“Price-conscious consumer that buys their coffee at the same store they buy their toilet paper.” That’s so right on, Kristine. Good alignment too because toilet paper is yet another ubiquitous commodity. Thanks for the comment.
Kim,
I was stunned when I saw this logo for the first time earlier this week, and you’ve captured precisely why. This logo screams “corporate coffee.” It’s bland, nondescript and devoid of any emotional connection with the actual process of selecting and drinking coffee.
The font style is sterile, the graphical elements are plain and entirely unmemorable and the colors lack any associative meaning.
Is the white droplet supposed to remind me of coffee? Why isn’t it brown? And why is it contained within a semicircle that is reminiscent of a slice of fruit but has absolutely no connection to coffee?
There are so many wonderful ways to engage and connect with the consumer around coffee but they seemed intent on avoiding every one and focusing instead on coffee as corporate commodity. Good luck with that.
Thanks John. “The logo screams corporate coffee” Yes, yes and more yes! Great points you make. And to Seattle’s Best…good luck indeed.
Kim, I think you’re spot on with this, but I think I see where they were headed with the redesign as part of a larger positioning exercise.
BTW, this is all pure conjecture.
I think their target for the overall repositioning of Seattle’s Best is that segment that wouldn’t be caught dead in a Starbucks waiting in line for one of those fancy, overpriced coffee things. The market they’re after is the McDonalds McCafe crowd… people looking for coffee flavored coffee plain & simple. A number of the folks I deal with through my business are amongst those that wouldn’t be caught in a Starbucks, a cup of Dunkin’ or 7-11 coffee suits them just fine. Like it or not, despite decades of Starbucks & local coffee shops educating them, I would venture a guess that Folgers and/or Maxwell House probably still outsell any of the other brands. Good enough is good enough, so repositioning Seattle’s Best for that “unreachable” market segment makes sense.
Those of us lucky enough to have been to Seattle before Starbucks bought them, may remember that there’s a history to the brand (which I liked better than SB’s anyway) but for the vast majority of the country, that brand history does not exist.
I think they went a bit too far in translating the plain & simple part into the logo, but I think the positioning of Seattle’s Best as the foil to McCafe is a smart marketing decision executed a little ham-handedly.
Thanks Mike. All good points. They are definitely going after the masses (read Dunkin’ Donuts, McDonalds) since they’ve planned on serving Seattle’s Best in Burger King, Subway and various movie theaters around the country. It’s hard not to see the positioning against the golden arches. But, why should “good enough be good enough”? Why settle? Why not be better than what McDonald’s has to offer, and make the brand distinct – and by brand I don’t simply mean the logo. I mean everything – the product, the service, the experience.
It does make you wonder if Starbucks is preparing to move their (IMO) devalued coffee stands out of Target stores (devalued because a) it’s parked in a Target next to awful reheated frozen pizza and bad hot dogs) and b) the coffee is almost always horrible in those locations for some reason)) and move the new Seattle’s Best/Target-aligned line into those outlets.
That may be the worst sentence I’ve written today.
Kim: That’s actually the kind of thing that’s happening across the board these days, consumer products, electronics, everywhere.
Take a look at cell phones: yes they do all sorts of whiz-bang things, but they sound terrible. But unfortunately, that’s good enough. MP3′s are horrible for sound reproduction, but people keep compressing them, making the files smaller so they can carry 10,000 songs around with them.
American Idol singers aren’t the best artists in the country, but they’re good enough, and that’s just fine with a lot of folks. Reality TV is cheap & easy to produce, is it the best? No, but it’s good enough.
Unfortunately it’s the good enough is good enough mentality of the vast gray middle ground of the market that drives this kind of thinking. There is still a market for quality, but unfortunately many brands can’t survive on just that, they have to play to the vast middle ground, quality, service & experience be damned.
Wow, that’s a lot more doom & gloom than I meant it to be.
What if that was Seatle’s best positionning, purposely? They distanced themselves so much from Starbucks brands that not many people know they are owned by Starbucks.
By branding themselves in such a unsophisticated manner, they reach exactly who they want to reach. Those who are not coffee groumets and who do not care about price. May be who think, the Starbucks drinkers are snobs…
It is difficult to come to terms with the fact that a brand would purposely do that to themselves, but what if?
Karima Catherine, I think that’s what Mike was getting at. It’s the Wal-Mart-ization of coffee. Low prices every day. Smiley face and all.
I don’t even know, really, how a tear drop signifies coffee. Maybe that should have been a brown coffee bean where the tear drop is – It would suddenly stand out, and say that the coffee bean is at the center of everything. Nice article here. I’m one of many that thinks that the new logo was designed by middle management meetings and forced consensus – Bland enough for all to agree upon. At least red makes sense since the company has traditionally used red for their logos.
The logo is crying over the desecration that has happened to the brand since Starbucks bought them. But at least they didn’t get turned into a supermarket brand like Torrefazioni (owned by Seattle’s Best, killed by Starbucks).
It doesn’t seem like Starbucks loves their sub brands and treats them like commodities – which you can see in the logo. 12 years ago Seattle’s Best was a strong brand in the NW, it’s hard to imagine that today.
Kim, for me, if I am already a loyal customer to a particular brand, a rebranding is less likely to sway my opinion of them. I’d have to say that the only two things that would draw me away, were 1 – something being more convenient or 2 – something I stumble upon (or through word-of-mouth) that is of better quality. There has to be some loyalists? Oh look, the anemic 6,000 plus on the Seattle’s Best Facebook page. I knew they were somewhere.
With that being said, who was the brilliant Brand Strategist that thought, “General is Better”? Sure everyone that’s addicted to or enjoys a cup thereof will seek out coffee closest to them. Perhaps Starbucks is looking at Seattle’s Best as the gap-filler for folks not loyal to a java Brand, seeking just this – a generally good, but not spectacular cup of coffee at an otherwise generic fast food/concession venue. Viva la mediocre.
Dean, “Viva la mediocre.” Well said my friend. Well said indeed.
The new identity reminds me of The Laughing Man digital otaku from Ghost In The Shell Series:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laughing_Man_(Ghost_in_the_Shell)
Reminds me of a coin-operated coffee dispenser, circa 1972.
I hope that their logo looking like a “coin operated coffee dispenser” doesn’t mean it also tastes like the coffee that comes out of those dispensers. Or worse…like it’s from 1972. Thanks Joel.
Lynn, thanks for the link to Laughing Man logo. This is the flip side with the tear and all.
They should just call it Victory Coffee, slap a big V on it and get it over with.
Scratch that – even Orwell would have had the decency to at least use a brown V.
Brand evolution that marks progress should always respect the past. I’ll admit the previous identity was probably a little stale (the coffee/cafe market has evolved a lot in the past 20 years), it wasn’t terrible. Here in the NW, the coffee/cafes were a respectable competitor. To obliterate any reference to where the company has come from is unfortunate. As a Brand Strategist it makes me sad they that this is the best they came up with. As a consumer, it makes me wonder what else they have decided to compromise on in the transition.
Thanks Stephen. I agree with you that moving so far away from the history of Seattle’s Best really was unfortunate and didn’t make much sense from a brand perspective. Even if Starbuck’s planned to shift SBC into secondary status, there was brand recognition to a degree that could have been built upon, rather than start from scratch and be completely generic. And, yes, I too wonder what they decided to compromise…
I’m no designer but…. I wish this conversation could step outside the echo chamber. I’d like to hear from the proverbial “man/woman on the street” about this. Let’s not forget that McDonalds had great succes eating into Starbucks market share by selling what were apparently really good espresso drinks, cheaper. In fact their campaign billboards were hilarious and spot on – “Four bucks is dumb” – http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/adtrack/2008-12-14-ad-briefs_N.htm When you put it like that it sort of debunks the “third place” conceit.
So the new SBC logo looks like a twist on the Target logo, well, that may be deliberate. Target entered the crowded dept store market and created a lifestyle/destination brand that customers love. Why not cozy up with a successful brand? To me the logo looks like a red coffee cup with a white teardrop handle. It also reminds me of the lid of a takeout cup where the white handle transforms into a hint of foam protruding out of the lid..
Does everything to do with coffee need to be brown? Actually, no.. if this makeover works who’s gonna eat their hat?
Kim, it feels to me that Starbucks are becoming so fixated on their brands that they may be tripping over themselves. They have a portfolio of brand offers now with Seattle’s Best, 15th Ave and the original Starbucks – but they lack the clear differentiation required for a powerful portfolio. Then there is the visual language of this re-brand for Seattle’s best…
The most powerful brand identities are those which trigger the most powerful cues whether they be tradition & heritage, new & cutting edge, local and hip, etc.
The weakest brand identities are those whose visual language is so bland as to be devoid of cues for the customer. Often these brands follow the ‘rules’ and trends (clean design, current type face, the ever-popular red for impact) but in so-doing trade their brand soul.
Whilst I think Starbucks have done many things right with their brand over the past 20 years, of-late they’ve been getting a bit too cute.
Great comment Dave (Ansett) – “becoming so fixated on their brands they may be tripping over themselves” – yeah. No one (should) set out to be bland, especially in the coffee business.
I know this blog post is a little old, but you hit the nail on the head! I have always thought that the new logo looks like something from a blood bank. Like maybe Seattles Best was trying to attract a different target audience… Vampires.
Now to make things worse Starbucks has also decided to change their logo, and not in a good way. I talk about this on my blog http://greenguerillablog.wordpress.com I think that they too have gone the wrong way with their logo. Has nobody learned from the GAP blunder?
The Green Guerilla
Thanks Logan for the comment. Companies have been on a logo update craze of late. Sometimes with substance behind the brand…sometimes not.