Starbucks Roasted for Exposing Lady Parts in Logo

You've got to hand it to the foaming-at-the-mouth moral zealots. They know how to market themselves: hone in on the biggest target you can find, grab their ankles, and don't let go.

Ad Age reports that a group called the Resistance Manifesto (sounds like a punk band from the Eastern Bloc) got their bibles in a bunch over the exposed woman bits in Starbuck's throwback logo. Apparently the pissings and moanings of a fringe group of 3,000 and others of its kind have sufficiently spooked the 'bucks: they've decided not to use it in certain areas of the country (read: any state that serves as the set-up to a trailer park joke) and have reworked the logo to obscure the mermaid's, ahem, water jugs:

Caf._______________Decaf.

Hoisting self up onto soapbox: It's a shame when the demands of special interests, religious or not, are able to sway mass policy, even if it is just a stupid logo. But folks like that are a big reason why religion in general gets such a bad rep nowadays.

OK, stepping back down.

Hey, it's America: you've got the right to throw your dinner theater-style Victorian temper tantrums; but don't come crying to Starbucks for a little late-day pick-me up after a fierce day of snake pokin' and book burnin'. That's what this is for. That, and crystal meth.



M.M.McDermott, ACD/Copywriter/Roman Catholic with an affinity for full-frontal logos

Previously from the Starbucks files: Sweat to an intern oldie; Mickey D's muscles in

Read more...

Intern Sweatshop: A New Series

One of the great things about working at a mid-size agency: you get the opportunity to stick your hands in the guts pail of sundry tasks and duties; job titles are more like suggestions than pay grades. I rather like that. Only downside is these duties sometimes eat into my non-billable tasks such as throwing prima donna temper tantrums, stealing editors' food from the kitchen, and, most importantly, the sweet release of blogging. It's a busy time around the shop as of late and, seeing as how I can only expect the Cap'n to post so many ad blogs about shots to the groin and pooping snowmen, we're going to open up a new series 'round these parts.

Submitted for your approval, the first in a series of blogs from our agency's favorite renewable source of semi-forced free labor, the intern pool. --ed.

The Starbucks Shutdown
National companies thrive on television advertisements as a way to pound their ideas into the minds of consumers. Up until recently, Starbucks hasn’t followed this mantra. Somehow, it still manages to maintain a healthy caffeinated cult. But on February 26th those who worship at the altar of the almighty non-fat frappe were forsaken. For three hours anyway. Starbucks closed its 7,100 doors for a “coffee break” to retrain unenthusiastic baristas. Americans had a caffeine meltdown. The news was posted nationally across the U.S. in papers, on the internet, and on television, inadvertently giving Starbucks what they are known for not doing: advertising.

What happened to Dunkin Donuts, or reasonably priced 7-Eleven for coffee, or any other advertising coffee joint?

Well, Dunkin Donuts got wind of the “coffee break” and made a pitch to win over Starbuckees by giving out free coffee; they needed to. It was an attempt to save some face. Perhaps we can distract you with our new foam-filled latte. We even made it somewhat expensive and tiny, although not up to par with the normal four-dollar tall Starbucks latte. Maybe a box of munchkins will make up for a three-hour caffeine-induced headache.

Americans need Starbucks coffee like they need cigarettes or Britney Spears in tabloids drinking Starbucks while smoking cigarettes. Dunkin Donuts can probably give up hope to win over Starbuckees. Overly-priced coffee is what the world wants, not Milky Way hot chocolate. Sorry, guys.

Megan Stewart, Intern

Related: Micky D's skims latte lovers from Fourbucks.

Read more...

McDonald’s Hopes to Skim Latte Lovers from Starbucks

Looks like McDonald’s is really serious about McCafé, their new coffee house-styled restaurant concept. So serious that they’re gearing up to make a run at Starbucks’ customer base with it. They’ve revamped their menu and stockpiled it with more affordable coffee drinks, in addition to renovating their restaurants to skew more upscale. But there’s one problem: It’s still McDonald’s.

Starbucks is about the experience as much as it is about the coffee. People feel good with that warm cup in their hands. Whether you’re a school teacher, executive VP, or a bag boy at the local grocery store, you feel like you’ve tapped into something special when you throw down five bucks for that venti Foamalacious Whiptasticular Awesomecino with skim-soy-goat milk. You feel like Somebody. And you want other people to know you feel like Somebody, too, so you plop down on a cozy leather sofa with your laptop (I can’t afford a laptop, so I bring an Etch-a-Sketch) and you get to work tap-tap-tapping out the next great American novel (or etch-a-sketch-sketching a mean staircase) while the musical stylings of Thelonius Monk echo from the rafters. In a Starbucks, the alchemy of ambience and caffeine inspire us to be more than the sum of our parts.

In a 2005 interview, Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz put it this way:

“I can best describe it by stating that we are not in the coffee business serving people, but in the people business serving coffee. The equity of the Starbucks brand is the humanity and intimacy of what goes on in the communities that exist in each and every location. We continually are reminded of the powerful need and desire for human contact and for community, which is a new, powerful force in determining consumer choices.”

My McDonald’s experience, on the other hand, generally trends in the other direction. Whether it’s the homeless guy sifting through his hobo paraphernalia in the booth next to the Playland jungle gym or the semi-comatose counter kid who operates the McFlurry machine like he’s trying to diffuse a bomb underwater, I’ve noticed that McDonald’s restaurants have a “dynamic” all their own . Sure, I’m still Somebody at McDonald’s, but it’s usually that Somebody who’s wondering why he decided to eat at McDonald’s. And that’s why I’m skeptical of McCafé. It’s so opposite of the core McDonald’s brand. It’s less about the experience and more about the end result—getting food in my stomach as quickly as possible (and then getting the hell out of there before I get stabbed by a drifter or a party of eight year olds doped up on trans-fats and high-fructose corn syrup).

Don't get me wrong. I don't hate McDonald's. It serves its purpose, and I've contributed more than my fair share to its multi-billion burger tally. But when it comes to making the coffee house work on the same level as a Starbucks, I’m doubtful McDonald’s can get out of the way of its own brand. It’s developed into a cultural icon—and not in the wholesome baseball-apple pie way, either. Sociologists bemoan the McDonaldization of our civilization. It’s been stigmatized so much so that “Mc” has become the prefix of mediocrity: McMansions, McJob, McPaper, McDermott—see, the list goes on. Adding a latte and changing out your furniture won’t scare Starbucks. Consumers’ emotional connections have a longer memory than the marketing execs may want to admit. There are images from past visits to McDonald’s that continue to haunt me to this day.

My two cents: Use all the effort, the money, the creativity that they’ve been pumping into retrofitting these franchises with McCafés, and simply create a new brand from scratch—and then keep it as far away from the McDonald’s brand as possible. If a marketing guy even suggests sticking “Mc” in front of anything, send him to work a fry line somewhere in Toledo for six months. Make this brand the un-McDonald’s.

Or, better yet, buy out Caribou Coffee. They have free wi-fi and ottomans upholstered to look like stuffed bears. Now there’s a primo place to etch-a-sketch.

M.M. McDermott, McCopywriter

Read more...