supported the brand’s values but suggested that Starbucks was not being particularly effective in communicating them. Starbucks should be able to develop a style of advertising, even if not a scale of advertising, that would attract more notice and affection. The Big Dig also provided a foundation of information on which Starbucks could now start to design the store of the future. The architectural and design team played creatively with the possibilities, coming up with color palettes, stories about the sea and myths about sirens, illustrations and photographs, textures and textiles, furniture and accessories. As they did so they started to create mood boards, sticking fragments of words and images down until they evolved into the mural styles that are still current in Starbucks stores today.
The design exploration was given guidance and parameters. First, to delve deep into the brand, building on knowledge from The Big Dig. Second, to learn from fast-food outlets but to discard most of that learning, keeping only what would sit with Starbucks values. Third, to create a more expansive palette of colors and imagery. Finally, as if in total contradiction, to reduce costs by 25 percent. Tough and contradictory as it looked, the brief hung together with the findings from research: that, for example, students wanted Starbucks to be funkier, a freer spirit, a place where they could hang out without feeling the pressure of a fast-food outlet’s speed, high-tech efficiency and glaring lighting. They wanted a place for people, not a place to be processed as a customer unit.
The question being asked was challenging. How do you open 300 stores a year, each one of them distinctive and designed to fit the tone of the local neighborhood? It was a heartfelt and increasingly urgent question as the pace of store openings quickened and international openings added a further complication to the mix. Store design changed more radically than might have been expected, given the pressures on time and cost. Rather than moving towards greater uniformity – neat solutions that could be packaged and rolled out – design generated a new sense of creativity and adventure, influenced by and influencing the kinds of space being acquired. There was movement towards grand cafés, flagship stores with fireplaces and architectural features, mixing high ceilings with comfortable alcoves. Into these spaces were introduced leather chairs, fabric-covered sofas, newspapers and an attitude of non-conformity.
Structure and discipline were needed, however. These were provided by the brand itself. Difficult decisions were referred to the brand’s principles and values. For example, what kind of cups should coffee be served from? Though polystyrene was much cheaper, recyclable paper cups with a paper sleeve were chosen; they looked nicer and were better for the environment. Customers drinking coffee in the store would still be given porcelain cups because they added pleasure to the experience. Other companies would take different decisions – to cut costs, to ignore the environmental impact – but that way you end up in a business without soul and one that is not really sustainable in the long term. The expedient decisions you make undermine all sense of differentiation and personality, and give people little reason to like you and stay loyal. A brand is a hard taskmaster, forcing companies to live up to their principles or forfeit the trust on which they depend.
Graphic design imposed its own disciplines that also derived from the brand. Grasping the need to embrace diversity and respect individuality, the Starbucks design team rejected the sterile option of a single look for all the stores. They explored and developed variations drawing on the four elements of earth, fire, water and air, which were then related to four stages of coffee-making: grow, roast, brew and aroma. This provides an intellectual and aesthetic elegance, but is it too neat? Why is
The design exploration was given guidance and parameters. First, to delve deep into the brand, building on knowledge from The Big Dig. Second, to learn from fast-food outlets but to discard most of that learning, keeping only what would sit with Starbucks values. Third, to create a more expansive palette of colors and imagery. Finally, as if in total contradiction, to reduce costs by 25 percent. Tough and contradictory as it looked, the brief hung together with the findings from research: that, for example, students wanted Starbucks to be funkier, a freer spirit, a place where they could hang out without feeling the pressure of a fast-food outlet’s speed, high-tech efficiency and glaring lighting. They wanted a place for people, not a place to be processed as a customer unit.
The question being asked was challenging. How do you open 300 stores a year, each one of them distinctive and designed to fit the tone of the local neighborhood? It was a heartfelt and increasingly urgent question as the pace of store openings quickened and international openings added a further complication to the mix. Store design changed more radically than might have been expected, given the pressures on time and cost. Rather than moving towards greater uniformity – neat solutions that could be packaged and rolled out – design generated a new sense of creativity and adventure, influenced by and influencing the kinds of space being acquired. There was movement towards grand cafés, flagship stores with fireplaces and architectural features, mixing high ceilings with comfortable alcoves. Into these spaces were introduced leather chairs, fabric-covered sofas, newspapers and an attitude of non-conformity.
Structure and discipline were needed, however. These were provided by the brand itself. Difficult decisions were referred to the brand’s principles and values. For example, what kind of cups should coffee be served from? Though polystyrene was much cheaper, recyclable paper cups with a paper sleeve were chosen; they looked nicer and were better for the environment. Customers drinking coffee in the store would still be given porcelain cups because they added pleasure to the experience. Other companies would take different decisions – to cut costs, to ignore the environmental impact – but that way you end up in a business without soul and one that is not really sustainable in the long term. The expedient decisions you make undermine all sense of differentiation and personality, and give people little reason to like you and stay loyal. A brand is a hard taskmaster, forcing companies to live up to their principles or forfeit the trust on which they depend.
Graphic design imposed its own disciplines that also derived from the brand. Grasping the need to embrace diversity and respect individuality, the Starbucks design team rejected the sterile option of a single look for all the stores. They explored and developed variations drawing on the four elements of earth, fire, water and air, which were then related to four stages of coffee-making: grow, roast, brew and aroma. This provides an intellectual and aesthetic elegance, but is it too neat? Why is
Similar Books
