Think

A brand’s vanishing act risks being seen as oddly plucky or, worse, patronizing. This is particularly true if the reasoning behind it is rooted in a short-sighted quick fix or a publicity stunt. You might as well slap a Band-Aid onto an ulcer. In Parts I and II of this series, I looked at Muji, Starbucks, McDonald’s, Freshjive and, briefly, Al Green. Their changes in behavior imply not “brandlessness” but a desire to define a new brand or reinvent an existing one.

In Part I of this series, I looked at the idea of an established brand crafting a new identity and what that meant for Starbucks' experimental café. When compared to Muji, it became clear that—regardless of name or logo—product and design are central to communications. Some of Muji's products are created by known designers. While their names are absent from the work, they are associated with and, thus, represent the brand. Such behavior is sustainable.

If a product has any sort of defined presence in the marketplace, going “brandless” may seem impossible—or potentially foolish. Intrigued by the logo-less café that Starbucks opened in Seattle this summer, I set out to explore that and other intentional moves to drop, disassociate or reinvent a brand. In comparing these efforts to Muji—a brand built on being brandless (sort of)—I looked at what value there is in seeking symbiosis and adopting a long-term perspective when experimenting with a brand.