Filed under: "Whitestone Design Werks", Design, Identity, Logo Design
In light of Starbucks choosing to update their logo on their cups for their 40th anniversary by streamlining and isolating the mark and ditching the name to join the ranks of iconic brands Nike and Apple. Rather than get angry, I thought I would give it my (tongue firmly in cheek) take on what I think would be the next logical evolution of the iconic brandmark.
My take on the change as a designer, I think I would have explored a containing ring around the mark, and maybe even tried experimenting with size and orientation (which I would assume was part of their internal process), but I take my hat off to them for making a gutsy decision to take the next step and elevate the brand above being just about “coffee”. I think that removing the concentric ring, takes it out of the crest-style and negates the need to let it stand in isolation. I think they could have had a little more fun with it. But I also understand their desire to not mess too much more with the equity in the existing imagery. Would love to see the stages of exploration that they went through to arrive at their final design.
Fellow designers, don’t be too critical of my execution, this was just meant to be a quick, five-minute diversion that like all jobs that take three times longer than planned, turned out to take 15 minutes. So, there are nuances of curves that I would normally take more pains to smooth, etc. Also, the fact that by focusing on just the face, I realize that several other key elements to establishing the iconography are missing, notably the star-crown, hair and mermaidish apparitions of the siren. In hindsight, and if I had the time to indulge, I would have added at least two other steps in the evolutionary chain showing a more gradual reduction. The goal here was getting it to it’s minimal essence—actually, more like past it.
I think I’ll go put another pot of coffee on. And, get back to werk.
Filed under: "Whitestone Design Werks", Design, Logo Design
I recently had a book recommended to me by a friend that has evidently been must-reading for entrepreneurs for years called, The E-Myth Revisited, by Michael E. Gerber. I was aware of the book, but it had never been on my reading list. After my friend flat-out told me that, “You have to read this book” while simultaneously thrusting his well-worn copy into my hands I decided to take him up on his exhortation. While it has more of a Zen influence then I would like, I still found myself quite captivated with all of the business possibilities it stirred up in my mind (and heart). While there were many insightful sections that have stirred me to re-evaluate my own business model, I found myself in a bit of a frustrating quandary. For those who haven’t read the book, I won’t spoil too much (other than they all die in the end) by revealing that much of the business model is based upon developing a franchise-able vision for your company. My quandary was that I could not reconcile my appreciation for the franchise model which relies on developing systems that deliver quantifiable and repeatable, consistent results, with the reality of my business which at its very essence relies on uniqueness, abstract thought, subjective opinion and thinking “outside the box” as it were. How could a design business be modeled as a business that could be franchised?