There is a lot of people about the new Starbucks logo. First for Starbucks since 1992 year with an accusation that the company logo is satanic element because it is pictured as two-tailed Mermaid, a pagan God goddess.
I think that is a silly idea until reading what Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz had to say about their new logo: "is really important. This is a wide variety of logos Corporation which is a mirror image of the strategy Apparently. Starbucks plans to diversify, and not to be buttonholed by a logo is a company that sells coffee.
The only way that the CEO to talk about what this is, if he is possessed by only doyosun is a demon with a MBA in strategic marketing.
Schultz is endorsing the strategy is what is called the "brand extension is continued from the misconceived belief that brands (including mood that people feel about a certain product) can be harnessed for other types of products is what they teach you in school B.
And it's totally ridiculous
Partial failure extension brand more ridiculous, including El wayachiwit, soda, a tokrua pool cleaners Entrees of toothpaste in time Apple Ben-Gay aspirin Smith and Wesson Mountain Bikes and yoghurt Cosmopolitan Magazine (which is. Do not drink)
In the B-school For example, that is often trotted out as a brand that success is a Playboy who makes more money than they make merchandising in the magazine but that is for example the width since Playboy brand almost from the start of the brand "lifestyle" brand magazine, as just about any product that is committed to a certain age men fit within the promise of the brand.
In the case of Starbucks Brand is always the "good, but kinda expensive coffee" to everyone as adults before the year 2000 is dead, any attempt to expand the brand beyond what you expect to find in the coffee shop is a waste of time and effort.
Therefore, To change the logo as the exercise is pointless.? What's worse Leave the "coffee" from the logo just weakens brand because it weakens the Association of the company's main product is worse? It may cause the company to lose focus on the main products destroy the brand.
I'm reminded of when chicken Boston renamed as Boston Market, there is no reason whatsoever, because the store sold rotisserie chicken Boston-style. The market is not in the post.? Three years later the company filed for bankruptcy are stupid.
Similarly, older used billions dollars over several decades that attempt to change the position of a brand than those of the copiers.? Ask almost anyone on the planet is old and they will tell you: "they make catastrophic" copiers "or they use to make think copiers.
Every time you see companies trying to expand the brand. You can find top management will be hypnotized by the marketers of brands.? When under way They lose track of the fact that brands are only lingering emotional reactions to your products … life there. Find resumes of customers with existing products.
Define your brand because nearly all trade in this market — and particularly redesign logo — a waste of time and effort perfectly and to redesign the logo is to help the company move into another category … product is beyond ridiculous.
Related posts:
没有评论:
发表评论