When building a new restaurant concept, inspiration is in no short supply. Often times leaders look to category giants for direction on what “great” branding and marketing looks like. And just as often, that work translates into benchmarks for evaluating design and messaging. This is a mistake.
Taking inspiration from existing concepts is a critical error based on bias. The bias is rooted in the thought that the brand is successful, therefore, the messaging and design must be hallmarks of that success. It’s not a bad way to think, in general, but it comes with significant challenges that will prevent successful growth of a new restaurant brand.
A primary challenge of that biased thinking is the lack of insight into the history of that brand and everything that history has done to help it succeed. Were there menu shifts? Were there operational model shifts? Were there changes to the brand’s identity and messaging over the years? The answer to most of these questions is an absolute “yes!”
The fact is, brand growth and branding is a journey. The beginning of that journey comes with a reality that shifts with the brand’s growth. What I mean by that is this: When you launch a new brand, the geography, state of the patrons in that area, market conditions, and multiple other factors are a unique moment that won’t be experienced again. It’s a magical moment and unique to every brand’s lifecycle.
And because it’s such a magic moment, the brand’s initial strategy and resulting design must uniquely meet it. That means the way a brand looks 10 years ago was designed for that moment in time and all the factors contributing to that moment. A design that emulates it will fall short and miss the mark.
Another mistake often experienced as a result of emulation is understanding that the brand’s look today is not what it was at its inception. Take, for instance, Starbucks. The green siren is ubiquitous and part of our culture at this point. It showcases solid design principles in action: maximum meaning, minimal means. However, the green siren is not where Starbucks’ brand identity started way back in 1971 in Seattle, Washington.
At the inception of any new restaurant brand, there is the same challenge: awareness. Put simply, no one knows about the brand and no one cares about the brand. No one knows what food the brand makes nor do they know if the food is good or worth trying. There are a lot of unknowns which means there’s a lot to communicate and not a lot of space to do it because of limited budgets.
If Starbucks were to launch with the identity they have today, they’d have a much tougher time getting off the ground and growing. The original logo did more than simply establish a brand name and mark. It established what the brand sold. In this case, “coffee, teas, and spices.” That description is critical in positioning the brand’s offering in a world where no one knew the brand.
Additionally, the design was lo-fi. It felt of the local area and not a big brand. In that time and place, this type of look probably did a lot in opening the door to new trials from people who were unaware and timid with trying a new coffee spot.
Of course, as the brand grew, the needs shifted. Folks in new markets already knew what Starbucks sold. They needed a reason to abandon their go to, and give Starbucks a try. And because of the awareness around the brand’s offering was there, the need to communicate why the brand exists was the new goal. With that goal came the need to simplify the identity so folks could quickly, easily recognize the brand from city to city.
The simplified identity sheds the “local coffee store” look and the sentiment surrounding it. The new focus was to establish the promise of consistency, the idea of “this will be the same delicious cup of coffee you had at X location.” Consistent and clean image communicates consistent and clean stores.
Of course my insight into all of the operational and menu shifts over the years is limited, but outside looking in, one can easily see that the way a new restaurant should launch with branding and marketing must meet the cultural realities of the time and moment. You cannot let decades old, larger brands with notable brand equity dictate what should be done for a brand that hasn’t flipped on the open sign yet.
