It’s a situation most brand managers would kill for: a small business evolves into a global success — consistent products and experiences, stores on every street corner in the world. The brand played

all its cards right, and the market graciously rewarded its business model. But looks can be deceiving and, after time, the public starts to see the brand as too big, too popular and too polarizing. Some swear off the company altogether.
What’s a brand to do? Go undercover — at least that’s what
Starbucks is doing. The captain-of-industry coffee titan is opening new stores in the Seattle area sans Starbucks branding. Customers walk into
15th Avenue E Coffee and Tea (in fact, the bizarro Starbucks) and are greeted by what the designer of the project calls a "
true reflection of the neighborhood": organic, raw and mercantile. Not a Starbucks logo to be found. What seems to fly in the face of accepted branding rules is evidently gaining popularity.
This new brand nihilism meme even spills into fashion. The clothing brand
Freshjive, recently announced that it will
no longer print its logo or name on its products. The brand’s founder and designer states that when he sees kids wearing company logos it reminds him of a tribe or a gang.
Have people grown tired of being walking advertisements? Do consumers want to cut ties with corporate personalities? Probably not.
Starbucks is the most popular brand on Facebook. It’s interesting to see the brand develop the beginnings of a dual identity: on one hand embracing social media to expand its reach in the virtual world, and on the other hand covering up its identity in the brick-and-mortar world to attract jaded customers.
Do marketers really think this will work? If
redesigning your logo or
changing your name doesn’t change the public’s perception of your brand, what happens when a brand sheds its identity altogether? Will the public be able to distinguish the brand from its competition or even know that it’s still there?
What do you think?