11–15 of 15 posts
No it doesn't. Maybe if there are no alternatives, but they've taken some of the trappings of a good 'third place' and standardized them into a fairly bland format, and left you with something that doesn't really fit that bill.
Executive #1: how can we apply our "brand" in ways that penetrate beyond the coffee business? Management consultant: we advise that you first keep what's iconic and recognizable about your logo, and then remove any reference to coffee Executive #2: we need to be sure we do not repeat what Gap did. Management consultant: don't worry about that. Trust us! Customers: I miss the old logo.
Way to put as crass a spin as possible on what they did.
I can understand associating a small picture with a company. Its something like cash: transfers perceived value from one location to the other. But why does not any form that is moderately memorable do.
What I find hard to understand is that a little tweak here and there apparently has a huge impact. Not talking about he new Starbuck logo, just in general.
Executive #1: how can we apply our "brand" in ways that penetrate beyond the coffee business? Management consultant: we advise that you first keep what's iconic and recognizable about your logo, and then remove any reference to coffee Executive #2: we need to be sure we do not repeat what Gap did. Management consultant: don't worry about that. Trust us! Customers: I miss the old logo.
Why is the executive greedy? I have no idea what their plans are, but is there something unethical about going beyond coffee?
Can anyone shed some light on why logos and names matter so much. I know they do because millions of dollars are spent on getting these right. But I cannot see myself consciously saying "Nah ! I wont be their customer I don't like their logo". But I must be doing it at a subconscious level. I can understand associating a small picture with a company. Its something like cash: transfers perceived value from one locatio…