There are a lot of web galleries out there, but the editors over here pick the sites that correspond most to my design philosophy, and that give me fresh inspiration.
Novaurora Blog | For Designers, Marketers, and Entrepreneurs
Design, advertising, branding, marketing, business, and the ether that binds them all together.
by Jason M. Putorti
Lead Designer, mint.com
Founder, Novaurora
There are a lot of web galleries out there, but the editors over here pick the sites that correspond most to my design philosophy, and that give me fresh inspiration.
It seems that a lot of people, myself included, have been wondering what Starbucks is doing. The reintroduction of the original logo left a lot of people scratching their heads. I’m not sure what it means, nor do I like it visually– I’m not sure who does. Anyone?
The general vibe out there is that Starbucks is floundering due to people pinching discretionary spending in response to rising gas prices and 70’s style stagflation. So I was actually interested for once to have a look at this particular annual report which came in the mail. It shows that growth is still strong at Starbucks on the revenue side. From 2005 to 2006 Starbucks added $1.4B in new revenue, from 2006 to 2007 they added $1.8B.
My friend Miche said yesterday that, “Starbucks should be the Target of the coffee world.” By that he meant how Target’s brand is that of affordable chic, and with the growing preference of independents in major cities and the possible loss of some brand caché, maybe this is what they need to do in the US.
Howard Schultz seems to be taking a more evolutionary than revolutionary approach: “The transformation agenda we are implementing includes improving our U.S. business by introducing new, exciting products and programs for our partners, and store enhancements to increase our focus on the customer. Immediately, we are slowing the pace of our U.S. store growth and closing under-performing locations. We are accelerating expansion and increasing the profitability of Starbucks outside the U.S. We will reignite our emotional attachment to our customers and restore their connections with our coffee, brand, partners and stores. And we are building for the long-term—both in ensuring our support functions are focused fully on advancing the customer experience, and expanding our exceptional international success story.”
Despite watching Starbucks’ stock lose half its value since I bought in, I’m sticking with him… for now. I’m interested to see what happens, and I think Howard gets it.
What do you think?
Congratulations to creative directors Scott Duchon, Geoff Edwards and John Patroulis; strategy director Mike Harris; art directors Nate Able, Tim Stier, Ben Wolan and Nathalie Turton; and copywriters Mat Bunnell, Rick Herrera and Danielle Emery for their work on the Halo 3 campaign.
What Branding Isn't
Recently one of my friends, Christina of Branding Brand, was quoted in a Pittsburgh Business Times article about, of course, branding.
I feel I have to comment on this article because it really doesn’t explain what a brand is, I’m not sure why the author left this part out. A number of gems offer attempts to explain, but range from falling short to incorrect.
To put this matter to bed, again, I’m going to tell my readers that a company’s brand is what everyone else thinks about it. What is top of mind when you think about Apple or Amazon? Think of a brand as a personality. Companies are brands, products are brands, people are brands. Take yourself for example. Every interaction someone has with you has the potential to move their opinion of you in one direction or another, or influence what they think of your personality. The same can be said about a company. Highly successful brands own singular words in your mind, something Al Ries and Jack Trout wrote about in Positioning. My favorite example is Kleenex.
A troubling snippet from the Pittsburgh Business Times would be from Jim Cipriani, “What you are trying to uncover is what is unique … about what the company is offering. It is tough to brand something like toilet paper. People just look for the cheapest.”
This my friends is a contradiction in a few ways. First, affordability is in fact a brand characteristic, and a legitimate one. Wal-Mart anyone? Southwest Airlines? Both have spent a lot to brand themselves as affordable. Affordability has a legitimate emotional appeal, spending less money on one thing allows you spend more on another, and lead a richer life. Wal-Mart quite literally with, “Save Money. Live Better,” and Southwest as, “a symbol of freedom.” Cheaper tickets equals more travel. Second, if toilet paper is so hard to brand, then why are there so many kinds? When you think about the softest for example, what do you think of? Charmin, Cottonelle? Not so hard is it. Those products have positioned themselves in a crowded marketplace, and have been successful. There’s no such thing as a commodity anymore. It’s been proven time and time again. You can position and brand anything. The list is endless.
Kate Tomlinson of Ripple Effects tells us that, “A brand is an all-encompassing thing in the marketplace.” Yes, thing. This is confusing and ultimately off-base. A brand exists in the minds of consumers. Your job as brand custodian is to affect it. Your tools are all the tools of communication: visual, written, verbal. You must be your brand. If you’re Lexus, you want your customers to think luxury. Everything from the typography in your brochure to the voice in your television ads has to just ooze it. If you want to be friendly and approachable, your e-mails and ad copy should be playful. If you want to be exclusive, maybe you talk down to your customer a little bit and make him feel less of a man. No joke. The most interesting man in the world is in fact more interesting than you.
Of note is how the author cites how Heinz is spending $100 million in two years on advertising and marketing for its 57 varieties moniker, and then later the explains that, “Advertising doesn’t build credibility, publicity does. Get your message out through the media and online.”
PR is without a doubt more cost-effective for small upstart firms, but advertising maintains brands and cultivates the company personality. To say advertising is dead is just inaccurate and simplistic. I would have to guess that it’s said only to motivate small business and encourage disruptors. GEICO has built their entire company on playful pop-culture advertising and supported it with customer service. FedEx vs. UPS is an interesting example. Over the past several years FedEx has shown a playful side with their advertising, whereas UPS has been more serious, “what can brown do for you?” Back to Heinz, I am 25 years old, and I for one really have no idea what 57 varieties means anymore, and I’m sure they realize that at Heinz. I know historically what it is being from Pittsburgh, but I struggle with association. To me Heinz means ketchup, Pittsburgh, and diners. 57 varieties maybe means authenticity if I think hard enough. If this isn’t what Heinz wants me to think, then it’s indeed time to spend some money. To be fair to Heinz, they have done a great job (they’ve had over 100 years to do it), and of note is that they do not call all their products ‘Heinz’, they own a huge number of independently branded product lines. If 57 varieties is to be put into the public consciousness more, I would focus on the values of quality, authenticity, taste (supposedly) common to all Heinz products.
In conclusion, do a little digging for yourself. Read Al Ries, Jack Trout, David Ogilvy, or talk to a good agency. Understand that the key to successful branding is not, “consistently repeat[ing] your message so the public remembers it.” I for one wouldn’t find that appealing.
This could be an example of retro gone bad. Only time will tell, but I pray that Starbucks is not seriously considering keeping their original logo. I have to assume this is just a publicity stunt. However, all press isn’t necessarily good press, and this move reeks of desperation.

What were they thinking? Let me take a shot at it:
- Hey, I think our logo needs to be more dynamic! More high tech!
- More dynamic?
- Yeah, it just isn’t exciting enough for me… let’s juice it up. How about one of those swooshes!
- Umm…
- Yeah, a big red swoosh! Make it happen!
Another twist… I just happened to come across the Citibank logo. When you put the logos side-by-side now and step back, they really look scary similar.
Read more on this ridiculousness at BrandNew
