May 15, 2008
-
The Slutbucks of Coffee
Starbucks has just become the Slutbucks of coffee. They changed their logo from this:
To this:
This has caused at least one group to be outraged. Mark Dice, the founder of the group, The Resistance said the new logo “has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute.” He went on to say in a news release, “Need I say more? It’s extremely poor taste, and the
company might as well call themselves, Slutbucks.” Here is the link: LinkI know I will no longer be taking my four year old there for her $5 coffee. (The coffee was keeping her up at night anyway).
Which do you prefer, the Starbucks logo or the Slutbucks logo?
Comments (203)
Don’t care, don’t drink their coffee.
It’s a mermaid!
It’s from the novel “Moby Dick”…it has literary roots. It’s not just some random naked woman!
Starbuck is the character in the novel who serves people food and drinks.
It isn’t a woman, its a mermaid. And that was their original logo. I don’t see anything wrong with it personally.
…slutbucks…lol!!
For clarification, it’s a mermaid spreading her tails….and I like the original one better.
And I have my cup right here… the image on the cup doesn’t have her breasts exposed…they are covered by her hair. That image you have is manipulated somehow.
And you, Dan, of all people…who are a fan of people sending you breasts pics!!!
I was going to say what NightCometh did!
As for the logo, hate it.
Want the old one back.
I too will refrain from purchasing from them.
My boycott has more to do with needing to put gas in my vehicle rather than coffee in my belly. So, uh … it’s self inflicted. The boycott. Yeah.
I prefer having good coffee with my girlfriend.
Eh, I don’t see what’s wrong with it. I don’t shop at Starbucks, though, because it’s shitty and overpriced.
Oh … and btw, it’s just another ad campaign. And a brilliant one at that … we must stay interested, yanno?
Starbucks logo. I don’t know wny you’d change it really. Everyone recognizes that green icon. Imagine if McDonald’s made had three black arches instead of 2 gold ones.
Not a surprise. Starbucks caters to the liberal elitist crowd. They think they are above morals. Just like the religious conservative crowd think they are that final word in what is moral.
In short starbucks is pandering.
Change isn’t ALWAYS for the better! My son works at Starbucks, I’ll have to ask him what he thinks about it.So…what is this STARBUCKS BOLD MOVE! ROFL! Big companys kill me what they try to throw at us! Why not leave a perfectly good thing ALONE!
I don’t care either way but now I really want a coffee. Even if it’s a slutty coffee.
I do not drink coffee or tea.
I prefer the top logo.
Dan, you KNOW that logo was photoshopped. My sister has worked for Starbucks for the past 8 years now. It’s nothing like THAT photo.
Essentially, it’s the same picture but at a lower zoom, and poorer quality. Personally, I like the starbucks one better. But I’m confused as to why she’s spreading her tail…I would imagine that would hurt a bit. Gives me the heeby jeebies. Doesn’t really matter to me either way, don’t drink coffee period. But I do enjoy their passion teas on occasion.
@NightCometh - I never knew that! That’s interesting, thanks for the history lesson!
That was nuts. There were 4 comments when I started mine and by the time I hit submit there were 16. You people are quick!!
I prefer the starbucks logo.. :] I like green too, aside from purple.
OMFG seriously?
OK let me clarify some history for everyone:
That image on the bottom is the original Starbucks image which has hung at Pike Market in Seattle for 30+ years. It is an exact reproduction of a 15th century engraving, and part of Starbucks history.
I for one prefer it on that basis alone.
Complainers need to get educated! It’s art! Don’t turn this into another “David” discussion *glare*
I like the old one better!
@nidan - Well, this CHRISTIAN Conservative (not religious) just wants to point out what morality IS, and what ignoring it can cause. It’s God’s final word on it, not any religious conservative or any other so called religious person.I only want to warn of the consequences of being immoral, what folks do with it is their victory or downfall! Thats not forcing or craming it in the face, only warning!
I like them both.
@WiLD4SURFiNG - Yeah.
The “Slutbucks” pic above was the original logo of the store. There was a recent reversion to the old logo but it’s been updated with covered breasks for modesty.
@UnworthyofHisgrace - God’s final word. NOT any man’s!!!
@NightCometh - @WiLD4SURFiNG - The bare breasted version is the old version of the logo, from 1971-1987:
http://brandautopsy.typepad.com/brandautopsy/2005/06/the_evolution_o.html
They covered her breasts in 1987 and stopped showing the spread tail in 1992.
Howard changed the logo back this year, to show that they were “going back to their roots”. I don’t think they’re changing it everywhere – just on the cups. It sounds like a temporary thing… he just became CEO again bc of struggling performance, and wanted a high-visibility way to convey that he was taking Starbucks back to its roots as a company that focused on good coffee.
He’s intimately familiar with the concerns about the logo, b/c he presided over the earlier logo changes. But he must’ve thought that it was worth it as a way to show he’s taking starbucks old skool…
@NightCometh - Oh good, I’m not the only one who knows the origin of the logo.
And that logo was used by Starbucks when they started in 1971. It’s not anything new.
i laughed. and to anyone who sais its a mermaid – i was unaware mermaids had 2 seperate tails that can be moved in that manner. .
@nidan - Starbucks is reverting to their roots in an effort to boost sales in a sluggish market.
the photo might’ve been manipulated, as one xanga user pointed out.
@nidan - Yup, thats what I said, God’s final word!
@huginn - Isn’t that about the same as what I said?
@UnworthyofHisgrace - Well it looked as though you didn’t understand it in my origional statement!!!
Sorry, my mistake.
I vastly prefer the logo on the top. But I don’t tend to stare at the logo while I’m drinking the product. I don’t buy from Starbucks very often because they’re so overpriced and their quality is going down. I do like their teas though and will sometimes spring for a box of tea.
@john - I don’t think they’re changing it everywhere – just on the cups. It sounds like a temporary thing…
I hope it’s temporary. I rather miss my random-lengthy-quoatation with every venti tub of Joe. =)
@nidan - Roots = quality coffee. Not the liberal elitist pandering.
The old one, of course. Nasty.
Starbucks! Gosh…things are way too sexual these days…
Per a barista that I asked at Starbucks, the SECOND one is actually the original logo. Starbucks went back to it.
And that pic does look a little altered.
here for your educational pleasure, straight from my own Xanga photo album of my Seattle trip last summer, is a picture of THE PIKE MARKET Starbuck’s store:
http://photo.xanga.com/RaVnR/e7142134325489/photo.html?rewrite=true&album=b405df07341132&n=100
Why in the world would you give a four year old coffee? They’re already crazy.
Bahaha!! Slutbucks. That is a good one. I don’t care what is on the cup, it is what is inside that counts.
Mmmmmm cool caramelly goodness
Both of them look silly and would not convert me to parttaking in any hot beverage. As a marketing ploy, however, they got what they wanted: controversy = free publicity.
The old looks better!
@RaVnR - Someday, I too hope to make a pilgramage to the holy land.
I always wondered if they were named after the character from Moby Dick. Apparently so. That said, I thought the OLD logo was slutty. The new one, moreso. However, I appreciate the nod to one of my favorite classics.
http://weblog.xanga.com/RaVnR/657082828/slutbucks-my-tail.html
I like that they have gone to the old fashioned looking logo- and on my cup this weekend, the breasts were covered by her hair. And she’s doesn’t have legs to spread b/c she’s a mermaid! On the other hand, I don’t like the new brown color.
I don’t have coffee there that much anyway b/c New Orleans has a lot of good locally based coffee shops. But I don’t have a problem with it.
I find it funny that as logo get modernized, this one seems to be going back in time. As for the pair of breasts, I’m outraged by the people who get outraged over such nonsense.
um ….. i never noticed that and i’ve been drinking their coffee every day and quite frankly …. who cares? if you want to talk about immorality and exposure why not talk about what we see on the telly every single day? Why pick on 1 company’s logo? Seriously, this is not a battle to be fought if you are not going to attack everything that has people exposed somehow … and if it’s just on the sleeves then don’t take the sleeves ask them to double cup it
@nidan - Not a problem , I just get tired of being lumped into a catagory of self righteous people. God is the only righteous One. I think true CHRISTIAN conservatives AREN’T trying to make it look like they are BETTER than anyone else, only trying to show folks the dangers of being immoral and the consequences that they will face. I hope I don’t come across as preaching, but I’m sure to some I do. It’s just warning to me not preaching or craming it down ones throat. If they feel it’s being crammed down their thoat, then MAYBE they should take a good look at their heart!
I live in Seattle. They are merely using their original logo from their first store.
Which I’ve been to.
Which is overrated.
I don’t know how anyone who considers themselves to be “liberal” can go to Starbucks with a clear conscience.
Their business practices and shitty coffee are of far more importance than their logo ever could be.
Leave it up to idiots with a twisted sense of morality to judge that the human breast is obscene…
Starbucks…definately!!
They just went back to their original design. If you go to the first SB in Seattle, thats the design they always have… The original store is across the street from Pikes Market.
ummm isn’t that the original logo from when they were just a small coffee shop? before they were bought by corporate?
Oh noes! The human body! Shield your eyes!
I like the new one. That 15th century artwork is gorgeous.
Americans are such prudes.
I bet this is completely a nonissue in Europe. They’ve got racy things all over the place, especially in France.
It seems to me that the “new” logo is merely an old-fashioned version of the old one, though the picture is zoomed out a bit. The “old” logo has a woman holding her “legs” (they look like twin mermaid tails or something to me) apart. So, I suppose the only difference between the old logo and the new logo is nipples.
Either way, I still don’t like coffee.
BTW- Have you ever examined the backs of some brands of playing cards? I think it is Hoyle or Bicycle brand that has mermaids that kind of look like the “new” Starbucks logo.
It’s a mermaid.
And I like the green more.
STARBUCKS!
what’s with that saggy boobs!
that was the first starbucks logo! it’s not a slut and it’s not a prostitute. it’s a siren and it relates to the brand name as well – starbucks is one of the guys in moby dick. moby dick = sea = mermaid = siren. the green logo is actually also of a siren, just that it’s been very modernised: hair covering boobs and the weird looking “crest” around her are her tails.
ttc, don’t you do your research before posting?
I am pretty indifferent. I don’t think the “Slutbucks” logo is offensive, and I wasn’t that in love with the original one, either.
eh I could careless but I like the one on top. it looks like a lot of companies are going old fashion again, for example D’angelos logo
The new Starbucks logo made me laugh hysterically when my sister brought me a latte about a month ago and pointed it out. “It’s like a naked mermaid doing the splits!” she said. I laughed so hard I almost fell over and spilled coffee all over myself.
Mermaids are usually naked, but everybody knows they can’t do the splits!
I didn’t think this was a real story. This isn’t a real story right?
The new logo is vulgur!!
I first is the same as the second except for a few things.
1. Its zoomed in.
2. Hair comes down the front.
3. Its a bit less realistic.
So there is no need to complain.
people are just upset because the new logo is not as “attractive” as the previous one and ahhhh an inner fear of change…shut up and live with it…
While I don’t drink Starbucks that much, I like the original logo more.
Maybe I should start enjoying a nice cup of slut every morning from them.
The “new” logo is the original design. It’s just “new” to the rest of the world. It’s the same logo you find if you were to go buy a cup of coffee at Pikes Place in Seattle, where the original store is. There is nothing wrong with it, people just freak out over change. Yeah.
[Looks at the green "old" logo.]
[Looks at the brown "new/old" logo.]
[Thinks to himself that he is happy that he bought the Starbucks tumbler. With the green "old" Logo.]
The former, definitely.
But that’s probably because I’m so used to it. I despise unnecessary changes.
The new one looks less classic, but I don’t look at the logo much…I buy and drink. =)
actually this is their ORIGINAL logo, the more commercial one is the new one. the group is like most groups, wrong based on assumptions that facts disprove.
it’s a siren, not a mermaid. sirens are more bird-like than fish. they were the creatures in the odyssey that tried to lure odysseus and his men to the rocks while they sailed home, hoping that they and their boats would be destroyed. when i worked as a starbucks barista they always told us that the picture was of the siren trying to lure people in to get the coffee. which is kinda funny because that seems to equate coffee with death?
I hate coffee…so oh well. They’re REAL symbol should be a dude
with glasses, flip flops, jeans, some sort of earth toned shirt and a
large scarf typing his new screen play on his lap top while debating
the world’s state of crisis (and how he has all the answers to fix it
of course) with the person at the seat next to him. THAT’S the type of
Starbucks I have observed….no offence. lol
@nidan - well said.
The logo at the top shows her star in the crown….but that disappears with the bottom logo. I prefer the crisp clean version over the antiquated look.
It’s not a “split tail” or “spread legs” it’s a double-tailed mermaid. She has TWO tails! You can see the transition of the logo until the “Starbucks” version (Slutbucks is not included here) at this site.
i like the original, its less creepy
@NightCometh - THANK you for knowing that reference!!!
Also. I think that the old logo looked a little more modern, but thats just me. I don’t really care either way because I don’t drink coffee, but you know…who -hasn’t- seen that logo.
the starbucks logo has always been that form of a mermaid.
if you look at the original you can see then ends of her two fins by her head.
they just zoomed out a little
I don’t care because I don’t drink coffee but I rather have the regular logo.
Seeing I come from Washington which created starbuck I don’t think I could stand seeing that logo anywhere!
@userkike - I want to have coffee with you Nathan, as we eat Archer Farms Premium Quality Breakfast Panini Sandwiches (Thick cut peppered bacon for me and Glatt Kosher for you) together and discuss your girlfriend and my complete lack of one, old friend.
Oh, and retro does not have to mean ugly. Oh well…
i prefer the old one, but not because the new one is “slutty”. people need to get over it. seeing an image like that is not going to corrupt anyone. plus she doesn’t even have legs, so how could they be “spread like a prostitute”?
Not taking into account history and literary roots (because goodness knows the level of knowledge the average coffee addict has of these), I like the cartoony logo better.
The green Starbucks logo is iconic. It IS Starbucks. The round, soft lines are welcoming. It is what every logo hopes to be; Instant product recognition.
The redesigned logo makes Starbucks look like it’s trying to be something it’s not. Starbucks is not artsy and grainy. You go there to buy your overpriced coffee and free wifi.
Apart from the free press, the logo redesign is a mistake in terms of keeping their product reconizable. You know from the first glance at a partially covered green circle on a coffe cup she is drinking a Starbucks. The new logo is not as easily reconized, and looks like it could be any chain-wanabee.
@john - I was going to post something like this, but you beat me to it!!
And I really don’t care. Starbucks = whatever.
i’m fine with the slutbucks logo. it harks back to medieval artwork. i’m sure people don’t think of that when they’re sipping lattes, but i do. and when i was a kid, i saw pics of mermaids like that in history books and the encyclopedia… it didn’t damage me or make me sexually deviant or repressed. it just was absorbed as art.
I don’t see it as a big deal either way and you know me, I usually fall the conservative way. Only here in this great country would THIS be the controversy. -
I’m guessing the split tail is because the Siren mermaid often went on the very front of the ship…and this particular version would have a tail on each side.
On wikipedia…I just checked, and it states that the company briefly went back to the old logo in Sept. of 2006. People freaked about it then, too, I bet.
I am very conservative and religious, but I’m not offended by this image at all. I really don’t understand it…I don’t think *porn* is a good thing, but I am not offended by classical nude art. Is this really that different?
Bad, bad Starbuck…shame on them
I don’t go to Starbucks. No need to spend that much money on coffee when I can make my own for a fraction of the cost.
i don’t see anything wrong with it.
i like the green one
The new logo sucks. I don’t care if it’s part of their history; it’s boring and doesn’t have the impact of the first one. It’s also lacking in color. Not to mention the lame attempt at sex appeal.
@KNEESOXROCK - This is totally right on the money.
I definitely prefer the green one.
I personally like the old one in general….
why change it??
whenever I SEE green and white I want starbucks…even if the green and white thing is not starbucks!!
i like the original… it’s not only classier.. but it just looks better…
Actually, the “new” logo is the original starbucks logo. They changed it to the first one you have showing when they went corporate, though the original store in Seattle still used the original logo. Now Starbucks is revamping the whole company. They’re shutting down a lot of stores, they’re not going to have any more 24 hour shops, and they’re taking all their products back to a more vintage look.
Ow, jeez….
That’s the ORIGINAL logo of the ORIGINAL Starbucks location in downtown Seattle. Although not quite… looks like someone Photoshopped her hair out of the way so the breasts are visible. More like someone’s idea of a practical joke….
i like the logo change. the black and white is much better than the green in my opinion. although, this is not the logo printed on the cup, so the ‘slutbucks’ people can untwist their panties because they don’t have to see boobs with their coffee after all.
besides, it’s just boobs! every woman in the world has them…why are they so offensive? i’d be glad if they had the boobs showing. this world needs to push the envelope to break this silly boob taboo.
on an unrelated, but sort of related note, starbucks is the greatest place to work ever! i love my new barista job more than words can express.
I like the green one better.
And Dan, you weren’t serious taking your four year old for coffee, were you?
Damn. should have read the article before commenting. they already covered half of what I said.*is shamed*
I’m very intrigued to see whether the new one rolls out successfully. I think most people’s instinct reaction is to resist change – why change a good thing? But in the long term it might be a really good move for Starbucks, as the new logo brings out the other area Starbucks is trying to establish itself in – tea.
It figures that this article was written in Minnesota–or rather, in America in general. For crying outloud, the image is a twin-tailed mermaid, not just some random naked woman. The one that they’re re-releasing is nearly an exact replica of a 15th century image.
Get your facts straight.
It’s a fucking logo. People need to get over themselves.
dan, that was the original logo I think
Much as I love literary roots, I’m not a fan of the mermaid holding her tails. They could have had a better position.
I definitely see a topless lady in the new logo but not the spread legs.
Personally I don’t like anything about Starbucks and the new logo isn’t going to make me like them.
Actually, that was their original logo, and it’s a promotional thing. And…it’s a mermaid. YOU CAN’T HAVE SEX WITH A MERMAID.
As you can plainly see.
@UnworthyofHisgrace - or judging???
You’re kidding, right? I get that it might be an actual character and whatnot, but that seems like a really odd change to make. Maybe it’s just here in Geneva where Starbucks are one of the few smoke-free indoor spaces you can go to with your kids, but I see them as such a family-friendly establishment, it seems like a half-naked mermaid (original logo or not) would be a slap in the face to many of those consumers. Have they really gotten that big-headed that they don’t care?
I really like the color green, so I prefer that one.
the black one just looks too “corporate” for me. plus a two tailed mermaid/siren doesn’t make any sense to me.
Heaven forbid I see a pair of tits!
First of all, I’m almost positive that was their original logo. Second, I was just there yesterday, and her boobs are not visible on the logo – I don’t know where you got this picture, but I looked and her hair covers it on the real one they use.
STARBUCKS FOREVER
p.s. For the record, I do prefer the green one better. It’s recognizable, it looks cooler, and there’s really no need to change. The new one just looks stupid and boring and unrecognizable.
EW IT’S UGLY.
Starbucks logo. Also, I absolutely hate Starbucks. I never buy there – not only are the drinks huge-sized and hella expensive, they’re also disgusting. The past two times that I bought a coffee (at different stores, no less), I threw up.
I think Starbucks is overrated anyway; too expensive and I don’t drink coffee, yuck. I think the new logo is inappropriate. Good for you for not taking your daughter there!
I got a good laugh over the logo change!
That’s sad. Why does there have to be random change? I prefer the old one, but that’s just because I grew up with it.
Starbucks of course. The new logo is nto something I’d like to see: a in-detail drawing of a two taled naked mermaid. The original was much better. You recognized it as Starbucks, and it was cute and cartoony. It made Starbucks, well, Starbucks. They should have kept the old logo. [And yes, I am aware it was their original logo, but still, come on]
Much ado about nothing. God created breasts therefore, thay are not bad. Humans made them “bad”. The things people worry about baffle me on a daily basis
.
Hey Danthat’s true Cory will be able to legally have a Xanga soon, however, he is addicted to Facebook, as is all his friends, so I doubt he will be joining Xanga anytime soon. He’s had 2 or 3 sites on here in the past, actually one is still active, but he doesn’t sign in.
omy that second logo is outrageous yuck. I prefer the first one, and i had no clue they served tea anyway, they are known for their coffee, maybe the tea was better left as a sweet surprise when you went there? umm, sometimes less is more, and that’s all i’m going to say about that new logo.
I know a few people have probably already mentioned this, but Starbuck’s “new” logo is actually an older one they used years ago.
they changed their logo? I need to get out more often.
i prefer the green version, but the current logo is actually the company’s original logo. and i don’t think it means to imply anything sexual at all. the mermaid is splitting it’s tail; that’s what it is doing in the green version too, it’s just more abstracted. i think people read too much into it.
and yeah, the logo you provided on your site is a fake. the actual logo doesn’t have the breasts. it’s actually really upsetting, because that’s just a manipulative way to get people to side with the slutbucks claim.
To be perfectly honest, I just plain don’t like the old/new logo. I mean, for me, its an aesthetics thing. The green one is more pleasant. But that’s just my opinion.
And oh yeah, you got FEATURED!!! Yaaayy!!! I bet it’s a thrill that never gets old! Huzzah! Congratulations!!! =:D
If they put Katee Sackoff from Battlestar Galactica on there (she plays Starbuck), they’d be endorsing unstable, suicidal females. They just can’t win.
Seriously though… seriously dan… You post about breasts all the time. And these are drawn… so I know you don’t really have a hangup with it. Besides, her legs are spread like a contortionist, not like a prostitute.
I like the old logo just because it’s simple. Then again, I don’t drink coffee so…..doesn’t really matter, I guess.
Why change something everybody recognizes. I’ll have to see the real logo at the store before I know what I think for sure. It’s not as pretty on here though, and who can afford the coffee regularly anyways?
Don’t like the place anyways! So who cares!
Firstly, the “new” logo is actually their original logo. Secondly, it’s not a woman spreading her legs, it’s a mermaid/siren spreading her tails/fins.
I like the green one better but I don’t think there’s anything perverse about the new one, it’s simply more retro looking. Starbucks is hurting these days due to competition. I suppose they did this in attempt to update their brand image and remain competitive.
I personally prefer the newer one that doesn’t show her breasts. I know he wants to take everyone on a little history lesson of the company with the old one but I don’t find it very tasteful.
OK, a couple of things here.
1. The “new” logo is actually their old logo Starbucks used when they opened in 1971. Where was the outrage then?
2. I have a Starbuck cup in front of me now. The logo is changed from the one you are showing. The wreath now covers her breasts.
I prefer the Starbucks logo. The picture itself doesn’t bother me, but the Starbucks logo is simpler and cleanier (as in easy to identify). Anyone in advertising knows that the more simple an ad is, the better it is recognized.
@Color_me_Karma - Thanks!
@mrcolorful - I don’t think you were in the targeted group, really.
I don’t really care about the logo. I just want my coffee.
@UnworthyofHisgrace - My expierience of christian conservatives… (Actually the better way to put it is christian republicans) is not so optimistic.
first off, IT’S A SIREN, not a mermaid. like in the odyssey, part woman part fish or whatever, with two tails. she has two tails in the green logo that are “spread open” just the same.
second, this isn’t a new logo, it’s the original logo when the first store opened in seattle in1971…and this isn’t really news, they put this logo on the cups in certain stores before about two or three years ago and people were outraged that there were tits on the cup, so they changed it back. because boobs always=sex. how do you have a siren without boobs anyway?
people should be more outraged about all the new coffee standards at starbucks. apparently, going back to being a “small” coffee shop and focusing more on the quality of the coffee than anything else means introducing a shit load of new products and flavors that are inevitably going to be discontinued because they wont sell enough.
you can get shots of energy in your coffee now. what does that have to do with the the taste and quality of coffee at all? it’s bullshit, nothing has changed at all.
@huginn - Root’s= Coffee for Seattle liberals. Same difference. Sorry if you disagree.
love this new one much better
@Rbynfairy - Just got in from working. I was wondering what you meant by “or judging?” What did you feel was judging on my part? If you mean the warning part, that goes for me too, it’s a warning to me as well. It’s sorta funny I think when you tell someone they are doing something immoral they attack you and say you are judging them, when the problem is they don’t like it because they KNOW it’s wrong and don’t want to be called on it….that IS NOT JUDGING someone, it’s called being truthful!
I think the woman is the original logo
I appreciate the historical and artistic value of the woodcut version, but the modern, green one is what people recognize. It’s a trimmer design, anyway, so for its purpose, I like that one better.
I can’t really afford Starbucks these days anyway; I’ll settle for my package of chamomile tea for under two bucks at Trader Joe’s.
I like Starbucks and I like their old/new/original logo best. The green one is so commercial & I think they’re going in the right direction to scale back. I’m fine with it, and my venti mistos.
I like the big text of the first logo and how it had green instead of being and all black & white logo. I also like the 2nd one’s style, but that style also makes her look a bit scary! and sorta dirty. but i don’t know if I would have thought it was a prostitue without reading this. i mean, those are her legs?? i thought they were mermaid fins. they’re too curved and…scaly to be legs. but I don’t understand why she’s doing that to her fins anyways. it doesn’t look like something mermaids would normally do?
And apparently from other people’s comments, her breasts are covered, so the nude factor isn’t a problem.
But I don’t really care which one they stick with. I don’t think Ibhave a problem with them.
starbucks, hands down
Okay, um, why did they make the change? I prefer the original.
The new one IS the original… except there’s one thing… In any of the logo’s I’ve seen in person, they aren’t as graphic as teh one you’ve posted here. on the new brown logo’s I’ve seen, her hair still covers her features.
As for spreading her tails, I don’t think there really is any connotation there.
I like the second one better, its more modern and simple. The first one, is not colourful. Its also a little exposing which may lose buisiness. But i really think the new one is better .
I think they should keep the old logo… it’s already so recognizable and it’s going to take a LOT of changing to get used to the new one.
hahaha..I don’t think I’ll ever see that here in Malaysia but I think it can attract more attention though. =)
as a student in graphic design… i think it should of went the other way around.. and i have no damn clue why they did that… its stupid. i guess its more vintage looking…
I like the original, but don’t really think it’s that big of a deal.
ew what the hell? it looks so ancient… @_@
i MIGHT still drink.. i don’t know..
the abstracted Starbucks.
I don’t care. I don’t go to Starbucks, anyway.
Its actually the original logo, but I dont like it much anyhow.
I like the more familiar logo, but I’m not losing any sleep here.
what a floosy!
Yeah, that’s the old logo. They’re just re-using it. And I have no preferences, I don’t even drink Starbucks
So her breasts are showing. So what? Why is American culture so squeamish about breasts?
I can see why it bothers some people, and they do have a point. But I don’t think it’s any different than some of the stuff you can see in an art museum.
…Why do so many people know the full history of Starbucks?
It’s just an overpriced coffee shop, not WWI.
You give your four-year-old coffee?
I have never seen that starbucks logo before. It looks too old-school for my taste (though I never really had much of a thing for coffee anyway).
I say the green logo we’re all used to looks better.
Old one. The new one is too fishy.
please get your facts right. it was like that to celebrate their 35th anniversary, not anymore.
I think this post has drawn more comments than the post about Einstein calling the bible childish and primitive.
Someone’s priorities are showing.
Hell, even the thing that people call “Tila Tequila” post got more comments than the post on Einstein.
Thought provoking questions is apparently not as important as who Tila did when she was 10.
Those are her legs? I just figured that was bush hair.
i really don’t see what’s the big deal. the “new” logo is just a tuned down version of their original logo and since it won’t be permanent, i really don’t see the need for the topic to get blown out of proportion. we’re drinking the coffee, not the logo. and i really don’t drink starbucks anyway.
like most have said, slutbucks is the original
starbucks logo was made so controversy wouldnt arrise and they could market their product better.
so there was no real change…
i think the starbucks logo is classier.
They are both ok but colorwise I prefer green.
Starbucks
I like the old one better. I’m used to it. The new one is icky.
This is their original logo.. all they did was bring it back.
i honestly like the first one.
They’re not legs–they’re tails. And I can’t find any evidence that sirens can have sex. Nonetheless here’s a little history for you:
According to wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbucks, “At the beginning of September 2006, Starbucks temporarily reintroduced its original brown logo on paper hot drink cups. Starbucks has stated that this was done to show the company’s heritage from the Pacific Northwest and to celebrate 35 years of business. The vintage logo sparked some controversy due to the siren’s bare breasts. In September 2006, an elementary school principal in Kent, Washington reportedly asked teachers to “cover up” the mermaid on the retro cups.[38] In early April 2008 Starbucks introduced a modified version of its original brown logo on hot beverage cups and holding sleeves with the ‘Back to Basics’ campaign. The modified version features hair covering the nipples of the siren.”
According to http://brandautopsy.typepad.com/brandautopsy/2005/06/the_evolution_o.html, “Terry [Heckler] also poured over old marine books until he came up with a logo based on an old sixteenth-century Norse woodcut: a two-tailed mermaid, or siren, encircled by the store’s original name, Starbucks Coffee, Tea, and Spice.
Ya know, God created breasts. And when he saw what he created, he thought it was good.
The idea that Starbucks is being vulgar I think just shows how ridiculously screwed up the moral ethics and values of this country are. The fact someone is trying to incite a negative backlash at Starbucks for attempting to re-market themselves with a logo resembling more of the old country stamps that might have been found on tea and coffee products sold during colonial times and earlier is idiotic. The breasts on the mermaid are exposed but let our children walk around looking like prostitutes? Her legs are spread like a slut – FYI it’s a mermaid with fins not legs and it is an imaginary creature. But please be infuriated as your child watches people have sex on your television set. And who the hect is actually studying the logo, when I want Starbucks I look for the big green and white lettering that says ‘Starbucks’ not the logo and I definitely don’t look at my cup once it’s in my hand. I JUST DRINK IT…Dumb asses.
What’s their problem? Why need to change their logo especially when they make it look worst?
I think the second picture was their original logo when they first started and now they are going back to it? It doesn’t affect me in anyways as long as the coffee and quality remain the same or better.
wow
I think it’s definitely suggestive. I think they should change it back. Even the old one was suggestive. LOL! Now they’ve gone too far.
wOw!! dats alot more than needs 2 b exposed on ur coffeeeeeeeee!!!!!!
I personally like the green one better. I do think it’s cool however that they are using the old logo temporarily though. Although it is not an exact replica of the original. The original is in the picture above. The version they are using now has her breasts covered with her hair. This by the way is the new logo they will be using on the Pike Place coffee that was recently released.
horrifying! :O we have a starbucks with fast walking distance to a couple of elementary schools!
honestly, the green one is much better.
Look at both images carefully. Heraldically speaking, each devise, or logo if you will, has the same charge. Both logos have the siren holding each of her tails in her hands. One is more stylized, but the postioning is the same. Besides, I think Starbucks still makes a darned good cup of coffee, a logo will not change that.
If
Thats a double tailed siren. It was the original Starbucks logo. The logo does not change the way the coffee tastes.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/entertainment/street/2008/04/starbucks_retro_colors_and_a_s_1.html
Check it.
Seriously, who cares?I buy anything caffienated from whichever joint I happen to be closer to.
Actually, I know for a fact that this ‘new’ logo is actually just a jump back to their original logo from the 70′s when they opened, so even though it isn’t their globally recognized logo, it isn’t intended to be ‘slutty’, I think Starbucks just wants to take their ‘vintage and hip’ image one step further.
That being said, I’m not a Starbuck’s fan- coffee or corporation.
I think both logo’s are based on woodcut prints of Melucine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melusine
I find no problem with it myself
i think you havent done your research on starbucks if you are really outraged with this logo change. The founder Mark Swartz found and made this logo they have changed to, something that was well known when starbucks first opened. They changed it to the green, and now they are changing it back due to idea that what worked before can work again. so before you go around calling starbucks, slutbucks, maybe do some reasearch. but thats just my personal opinion.
i like the old one, but i hardly think of the new one as “slutty”
If your someone who is actually offended by the new logo you clearly have issues. Have you never seen classic works of art where there is nudity? You know… David, The Sistine Chapel, Cherubs… its the same level of innocence. Sure the Starbucks logo isn’t on such a grand scale but its the same concept. Grow up.
It’s a mermaid, and it’s from the book Moby Dick. (Thank you, some random trivia game show!)
Also, the bottom one is their old, old logo. I guess Starbucks is having some kind of anniversary things and decided to mix the old logo with the new. *shrugs*
I still don’t drink anything coffee-related at Starbucks. Bring on the strawberries and creme frappuccinos!
I definitely prefer the original.
it has meaning. every logo and every part of it has it’s meaningful meaning LOL (; but it’s true though
The Slutbucks logo isn’t distasteful. It’s a fucking mermaid with two tails, and the breasts aren’t in a distasteful light at all. Maybe if they were gargantuan, or if she was drawing attention to them, sure.
But I really do prefer the Starbucks logo.