Via

I've been following new proposed legislation in Australia that would limit tobacco companies’ design of cigarette packs in an attempt to make tobacco products less appealing. The legislation would force cigarette companies to sell their cigarettes in standardized drab packaging without logos (but with health warnings). The Australian government selected the olive-brown color design based on research that it is one of the least attractive colors; a similar unbranded box has been considered in the UK.

Philip Morris claims that the regulations would violate international trademark and intellectual property law as well as destroying brands that have been costly to build over 40+ years. Ouch.

I'll be interested to see if the plain packaging really does anything to change behaviors (I can see it slowing new uptakes but existing tobacco patrons might not be swayed). Regardless, I do like the idea of the removal of branding as a weapon against marketers who seek to do harm.

Last week, Starbucks unveiled a new logo. This move, as readers of BlogLESS are aware, is done at a brand's own peril. (Further case in point, GapGate.)

Nevertheless, as Olivier Blanchard notes, "Seemingly undaunted by the prospect of having its own logo redesign firebombed across the Twitternets by masses of disappointed customers and fans, Starbucks moved ahead to mark its 40th birthday with such an exercise..."

The result?

The reaction, predictably, has been almost uniformly negative (and occasionally funny).

Logos "Starbucksified", courtesy of The Brand Builder Blog

Starbucks had to anticipate a negative reaction. But did they make a mistake?

I myself am not so sure. The logo retains the iconic Starbucks mermaid, and so visual continuity with the previous logo. Starbucks is hardly in a position to lose brand recognition at this point. Certainly, the new logo doesn't "pop" off the cup as much as the old logo does, but logos aren't comic books.

This design seems to me to be more of a political move -- a landgrab -- than a visual one. The point of logos, or at least one of their major functions, is to communicate the idea of a brand to viewers as quickly and simply as possible. If Starbucks can do that with a green circle, that, to my mind, is a huge gain for the coffee giant in the cultural iconographic Zeitgeist.

Of course, we probably ought to mourn the loss of a culture where we didn't associate a green circle with the Starbucks brand, but that's hardly the kind of thing we ought to expect Starbucks to care about. It's worth visualizing the iconographic payoff that Starbucks is playing for with this redesign:

The Starbucks logo, unevolved (contrast: Google's logo)

It's a testament to strong branding that you can recognize many of these even with the detail removed-- nothing more than color and proportions.

Via.

Here's to another year of worrying about design ethics with you, our friends and readers.

Also, apparently, here's to the International Year of Biodiversity.

2010 Logo by Futerra Sustainability Communications