When I first talked about Starbucks and branding more than a year ago, the company was struggling and depending on their brand to get them through. But it was apparent that the “everywhere” approach was watering down the Starbucks brand. Even CEO Howard Schultz acknowledged how the company’s misguided approach to gaining market share had damaged its brand.

Since then, Starbucks has pledged to focus on what matters most: the coffee. Their next move is to debrand by making the brand less corporate. How does Starbucks plan to do that?

According to recent releases both from the Seattle Death Star and UK corporate HQ, Starbucks is going to change its image with a raft of carefully selected authenticity cues. The centrally dictated colour palette and drear interiors will be smartened up with local artefacts, community noticeboards and possibly, whisper it low, second-hand furniture. Source: Guardian UK

The global initiative to debrand has already begun in Seattle, Starbucks’ home base. The company opened a store called 15th Ave. Coffee and Tea Inspired by Starbucks in July. By not using the corporate color palette or interior design standards, the idea is that the store looks more like an independent coffee shop than part of a corporate conglomerate. You can judge the new look for yourself here.

It’s good that Starbucks has realized that they have strayed too far from their roots and is making an effort to return to the personal, local feel that the brand once held. But capitalizing on the branding power behind independent coffee shops to attract more customers seems disingenuous and opens the door for more backlash.

I can’t help but wonder, how does this debranding — and rolling out instant coffee — really get back to the coffee?

Starbucks needs to do more than revamp the atmosphere of its stores if it wants to rely on the value of the brand. They are still focusing on making the quickest profit and increasing market share instead of doing what they said they would: focusing on making the best cup of coffee possible.

If you didn’t know that Coach makes luxury handbags and accessories, then its store on Hong Kong Island probably wouldn’t make you think of buying a purse. But it would definitely get your attention with its take on branding.

The Coach website talks about its craftsmanship, where “every Coach product embodies the perfect balance between design and function.” The store design is visually stimulating and that just might be enough to make passersby venture in. But is that enough on the function side?

Part of branding a company, product, or person is to use repetition of a particular graphical element, such as what Coach is doing here. People who are familiar with Coach will easily recognize the building as a brand they know and love. But what about those who aren’t familiar with the repeating C design? The main logo that conveys Coach’s product quality is lost in the glitz.

What do you think: is this effective branding? Does it do enough to ensure a good brand experience for both new and old customers, or could it be better?