The sheer Starbucklessness of it all.

The rollout of the Starbucks Siren to various applications—from web branding (hmm) to coffee presentation (stunning success!) to products, like these bags of coffee—is an interesting look at how a visual ID performs in different contexts.

I think the idea falls apart a bit on this product. While no one’s going to mistake this for “Tribute” brand coffee, because obviously you’re buying it in the context of physically being in a Starbucks, I, uh, still mistook it for “Tribute” brand coffee.

It’s weird not to put your name on it when other text is going to appear “at the top”, where a logo might be expected to go. I don’t even think Mickey Mouse or Elvis could get away with this application sans confusion.

Visual bliss: Starbucks new siren logo gracing some Caramel Macchiatos.

Looook. Isn’t that nice? So clean, so modern! So visually and mentally untaxing; pure graphic satisfaction.

Wednesday as I pondered how functional a wordmarkless logo is (or isn’t) as web branding, I hadn’t yet seen the symbol in a product context. The branded object, operating on a purely visual level and not engaging the mental processes required to read, is a relaxing thing of beauty.

I’m reminded of the headache-inducing mental noise of the billboards on Pembina Highway, absorbed daily while busing to university. Or rather I’m reminded of my fervent wish at the time: ads without words.

Star…who? Do you mean Timmy’s?

Starbucks’ crisp new logo has rolled out across (most of) their web properties. Judge for yourself if it works to have a symbol instead of your name spelled out in the top left corner of your site:

It’s not unheard of to let your brandmark do its thing in the web header without words. Nike does it. Burton does it. McDonalds does it. So do Apple, Volkswagen, and a number of the other largest, most recognizable brands in the world.

On the Canadian site, the coffee giant still spells out just who it is the green siren represents.

Is there concern that the Starbucks brand isn’t famous enough in Canada to pull off just the symbol? I couldn’t find the brand’s marketshare in Canada, but I bet it’s got comparable awareness.

I have a tweet in to Starbucks, so we’ll see if they have a rationale or if the header of the Canadian site just would’ve looked awfully blank with no wordmark. It obviously hasn’t received the design love that the American site has (where’s our customer appreciation video?) and making it work would’ve necessitated a redesign along the same lines, with nav (or, you know, something) at the top.

In a world of internet-flattened culture, and with chilly Canada the most online country in the world, American brands need to pay just as much attention to their Canadian presence. We totally notice.

Twitter & the crowdsourced brand

Behold Winnipeg ad campaign Recycle Everywhere! I chased buses for days to bring you these shots, so take a minute to really behold.

If you’re confused what this ad campaign (designed to ease in new, higher recycling levies in Winnipeg) has to do with Twitter, so am I.

The crux of the branding seems to be a small blue bird with voice balloons. Hallmarks of, you know, the 10th most famous digital brand.

Can you brand something with a blue bird in 2010 and not be referencing Twitter?

It’s a lovely brand, I just think someone’s using it right now.

I’m struggling with whether the designers:

1. believe Twitter, with about 6800 local participants, according to a quick Tweepz search, just isn’t prevalent enough in Winnipeg for the brand similarities to matter
2. are planning a brilliant Twitter campaign to support & extend the print blitz, or
3. have never heard of Twitter

Does Twitter own birds? Do they want to?

Modern birds have had their own look for roughly 65 million years. Can Twitter own the notion of a bird, or subset of birds (the blue ones)? If a brand spawns thousands of mashup logos, does it really make a sound?

Twitter famously licensed the first bird on iStockphoto for roughly $6. Designer Simon Oxley still sells it there for 14 credits.

That Twitter didn’t feel the need to purchase the icon outright like they did with Yiying Lu’s Fail Whale suggests they don’t want to ‘own’ the bird as logo. It’s a “decorative element”, branding wall art.

Logo liberty and the essence of crowdsourcing

The thing with Twitter is that the community really took the wall art and ran with it. You can find literally infinite permutations, literally, of  Twitter’s blue bird and they all mean ‘tweet’.

Logo liberty is one of the sticky factors of the Twitter brand. In true crowdsourced, Web-2.0-at-it’s-best fashion we are all permitted to customize the brand to suit us while still projecting the brand essence. That’s because the brand essence is crowdsourcing and participation. It’s a unique medium-is-the-message branding model born of a cultural shift to group brand ownership.

Let’s examine the extent of this Bird of the Crowd metamorphosis, shall we?

Blue birds = Twitter

A marriage of Twitter’s corporate blue and Oxley’s iconic (not blue) bird, blue birds from a variety of artistic  traditions were the first mascots to say “Twitter”. Beyond style preference, designers inserted their attitude visually as a means to convey their communication style (“I’m cute! I’m fun!”) or expertise (“I’m a freakin’ NINJA with WOLVERINE CLAWS!).

ANY bird = Twitter

We don’t all have blue websites, so soon all manner and species of bird came to symbolize a link to the Twitterverse. Twitter’s bird mindshare grew to encompass every bird.

Dissolving birds that are hardly even birds = Twitter

The whole ‘bird’ idea began to abstract, to simplify, to fly like a small blue bird to the wide open sky of possibilities, of barely-birds.

Anything blue = Twitter

With the bird concept now optional, the final ties to the corporate brand lay in colour. Twitter icons expanded to include anything in a fresh Web 2.0-y shade of blue.

Things that are neither blue nor birds = Twitter

Blue is so limiting. So are birds. There’s no reason a piece of toast can’t symbolize Twitter.

I’m sure you can appreciate the scope of the designer’s problem. If Twitter’s brand encompasses blue birds, all other birds, everything blue, and anything that isn’t blue or a bird, we’re going to need to open up more of the visual spectrum or something if we want to keep creating distinctive work.

This does make it tough to brand new products and services. Perhaps we’ve reached the end of branding, and it’s safe to start over again with small blue birds.

I’d feel really good about myself if you’d subscribe to my blog. Interactive & social media marketing insights served piping hot!