Filed under: Products and services, Starbucks (SBUX), Marketing and advertising, Scandals

I almost can’t believe that I’m writing about this, but I guess some prudes will get up in arms about anything.

BBC News reports that a U.S. based Christian group known as The Resistance is calling for a nationwide boycott of the coffee selling giant, Starbucks Corp. (NASDAQ: SBUX). The group’s complaint against the company stems from the commemorative use of a toned-down version of the company’s original logo. Starbucks says that the logo, which features a dual-tailed mermaid sporting cleavage, isn’t inappropriate. The fringe Christian group refers to the logo as a naked woman with legs “spread like a prostitute.”

The news report from BBC states: “Howard Schultz, who purchased Starbucks in 1982, described the emblem in his memoirs as “bare-breasted and Rubenesque; [it] was supposed to be as seductive as coffee itself.”

To look at the logo that’s claimed to offend, one has a difficult time even seeing it as raunchy. To call the flared dual tails a pair of spread legs might be a feat best accomplished while on serious hallucinogens. Clearly, this group of well-meaning Christians is at a loss for real issues to attack. The fringe group’s lack of imagination in seeking some media exposure for itself is seen by me as a shallow act of spotlight grabbing.

Starbucks is reported by the BBC as stating that the bare breasted mermaid will appear on some of its cups for several weeks as part of a company promotion. It was not revealed which of Starbucks’ 16,000 coffee shops in 44 countries will be featuring the racy mermaid cups. However, I’m sure that anyone who is interested in getting one of these alleged soft-porn coffee cups might rest assured that, before too long, they’ll be available to anyone via eBay.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Share This

Share This

Filed under: Products and services, Consumer experience, Marketing and advertising

British rock trio Muse revealed to music newspaper NME Friday that the band’s new material may be released more “organically” in the future, versus reserving it for an album release. This idea of taking the “album” out of the equation is something that many bands have been quoted as saying in the last couple of years, most notably Radiohead. Drummer Dom Howard is quoted as saying that the new methods of digital releasing and downloading “presents a canvas to do whatever you want and just release music as and when it is ready to release,” that’s, more organically.

The new “canvas to do whatever you want” should not indicate that Muse (or any other band) is “against the concept of releasing an album in the traditional format.” Howard maintains, “If we group a bunch of tracks together, it’s because they’re meant to be together as a unit.” The new formats are most exciting for new listeners and consumers, in Howard’s opinion, since they do not typically purchase an album on CD. Despite Radiohead’s success at releasing an album solely via the web (and for free), Howard also denied that Muse would duplicate that method. He and his Muse bandmates just remain open to new ideas for the music industry.

Organically released music would make more sense in the market as it grows closer and closer toward single-track downloads. The most obvious case in favor of releasing music as soon as it is ready is Coldplay’s recent free download of single “Violet Hill” in support of the band’s new album. While it was not released as soon as it was ready and was intended to directly promote the album, it did enjoy high downloads and put word about the band, the band’s return, and the new album out there rapidly and well in advance of the album’s release next month. Singles didn’t originally correspond directly to albums, so why shouldn’t the music industry return to that idea?

Share This

Share This