weezy Posted June 18, 2002 Report Share Posted June 18, 2002 This is a Starbucks ad that was pulled from circulation because a customer found it offensive in the wake of Sept. 11th. It was created well after the attacks. This is the same Starbucks that charged EMT workers $130 for water the day the towers collapsed. Starbucks sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h Posted June 18, 2002 Report Share Posted June 18, 2002 i woulda found it a stretch without the Title, that's for real? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Wish Posted June 18, 2002 Report Share Posted June 18, 2002 I am not one to just piss on corporations because they are large and successful. I live in the real world and know that capitalism is the only way. But wow, this is just disgusting. Maybe it was unintentional, but I can't possibly see how. I can look at this thing a thousand ways and I only see one thing...... Thank goodness it was pulled. Sean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarahbelle Posted June 18, 2002 Report Share Posted June 18, 2002 that's really messed up.. They are using something that was a crazy event to sell something. They are not only marketing money, but emotions too. MY room mate's aunt gave her a 'sovenier' pin with a picture of the WTC and the american flag behind it, and "September 11th, 2001' at the bottom. HOW MESSED UP IS THAT! Cheers, Sarah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woolner Posted June 18, 2002 Report Share Posted June 18, 2002 I don't find that offensive at all. It's stupid that they had to pull that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treyter Posted June 18, 2002 Report Share Posted June 18, 2002 total marketing onto emotion...very sleazy and shameless IMO. i too remember some asshole starbucks manager in NYC selling bottled water for $130 in the days following the attacks. of course they apologized publicly afterwards, but it clearly tells you what that company is really all about, given the pressure they must put on their employees to turn a profit. they had a very interesting discussion on this very ad on "politically Incorrect" a few weeks ago (i forget who the guests were, but it was a decent episode with bill maher slamming starbucks) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Low Roller Posted June 18, 2002 Report Share Posted June 18, 2002 Emergency profiteering is the American way. I am not surprised the ad looks like the towers, but at the same time I'm not surprised that somebody overreacted to a damn poster for slurpees. I blame everybody in this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bouche Posted June 18, 2002 Report Share Posted June 18, 2002 That could easily be a hoax ad though eh? If it's real, it would be pretty obvious to most people. I really can't imagine that being real. If it is...I'm never drinking coffee again. I need another cup... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
show---whore Posted June 18, 2002 Report Share Posted June 18, 2002 STARBUCKS, IKEA , THATS EVERTHING THATS WORNG IN THE WORLD TODAY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h Posted June 18, 2002 Report Share Posted June 18, 2002 i'm positive that they thought it up with wtc in mind ofcourse they did... i'm sure the imagery triggers somethign psychological that can be cashed in on ... i didnt really believe it was real either, it jsut looks so fake - even the names of the drinks look pasted on... i wonder if they even accepted that they might be caught with the any publicity is good publicity idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 19, 2002 Report Share Posted June 19, 2002 Sleazy, spineless and disgusting.. But it doesn't surprise me at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swifty Posted June 19, 2002 Report Share Posted June 19, 2002 i donn't know folks, could you guys be reading into this a bit too much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcane Posted June 19, 2002 Report Share Posted June 19, 2002 The question is, could someone have been reasonably expected to invent this ad prior to Sept. 11? The picture alone, maybe. Using the word "collapse" with that picture? I don't think so. There is nothing in the pictureas drawn to suggest anything collasping. The reference is entirely contextual. Based on that alone, it's very likely to have been designed specifically to capitalize on a bad situation. *That's* what's offensive about it. Looking at it another way, what positive image does this ad--picture plus text--generate? None whatsoever. Use the product and have a big building fall on you? What product benefit does this ad promote? Nothing that can't be derived from the picture alone. From a marketing perspective, this is a boneheaded endeavour except as a cheap publicity shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottieking Posted June 19, 2002 Report Share Posted June 19, 2002 Okay, maybe somewhere, someone thought fo to play off the word - collapse - in the wake of the tragedy. Twin cups for effect. Welcome to the art of advertising. Any press is good press, right. And once again, exploitation of tragedy/any thing contriversial and here we are, raving and ranting. I think the oppposite approach has to be taken here. The media (ads, news, music) has a way of taking ownership of words these days. I read a great article in Shift magazine about this a couple of months ago (March April 2002). For example, can you say the phrase to anyone "Have you had a break today?" and not have them or yourself for a split second not visualize golden arches. Try and see how many times this happens in a day. Just do it. See? So when did collapse become the exclusive property of the 9/11? The same time Ground Zero moved from Hiroshima to New York. I think the more we allow ownership of concepts by the media, the less freedom we have within our world. I already rail against P.C.ness for the same reason. So fuck it. Collapse into cool just as easy as you fall into flavor (and what the hell is Tazo anyway. Christ it's a glorified fucking slushy) and start taking your LANGUAGE back. this rant was brought to you by: scottieking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms.Huxtable Posted June 19, 2002 Report Share Posted June 19, 2002 This all seems concocted and sleazy. I mean come on, the dragon fly, resembling an airplane flying into the slurpy resembling the WTC with the slogan "Collapse" that is unrelated to the picture. They knew what they were doing when they created this ad and it's gross. But then again so is the entire Starbucks franchise and what they get away with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reba Posted June 19, 2002 Report Share Posted June 19, 2002 if they are stupid enough to attempt to capitilize on a tragedy, let them. it just turns me off of the company. i think the ad SHOULD be in circulation. isn't that what they developed it for? why should the public dictate what ads run? we are in control by deciding where to spend money. why should we be the moral police as well? they made a stupid advertising decision. it should cost them lost revenue, not MORE exposure and media time with the uproar over the ad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weezy Posted June 19, 2002 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2002 It is real ARTICLE HERE I personally wouldn't have a problem with if they didn't use the word 'collapse' - And, at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if some jackass in marketing actually thought this up with the WTC in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcane Posted June 19, 2002 Report Share Posted June 19, 2002 I'm not commenting on the legitimacy of running the ads. As for taking back the language, well, it's not mine or yours or theirs to take back. Language is a collective process, but it's not always a collaborative one. No, once a connotation works its way into a language, it's tunnel-minded to expect to strong-arm it into submission or act like it doesn't exist. It's like trying to unring a bell or unbreak a glass. Personally, it think it's more effective to use linguistic judo on it--work with its energy and give its momentum a strategic nudge, in the hope that it will go more-or-less in the direction you want. The thing will change eventually, anyway, since language reflects the society that uses it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badams Posted June 19, 2002 Report Share Posted June 19, 2002 THATS IT!!!!!!! This ad had pissed me off so much. I`m NEVER going to McDonalds again!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h Posted June 19, 2002 Report Share Posted June 19, 2002 i'm just so glad it's not tim hortons - give up tim hortons?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms.Huxtable Posted June 19, 2002 Report Share Posted June 19, 2002 Tim Hortons could sell their coffee in styrofoam cups, promote the killing of baby seals, chop down rain forests and run a campaign supporting Paul Bernardo and I would STILL drink their coffee. However I do draw the line at using WTC imagery in ads. I mean come on, let's think about morals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 20, 2002 Report Share Posted June 20, 2002 Anyone know why the picture I tried to post above doesn't show up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h Posted June 20, 2002 Report Share Posted June 20, 2002 cuz geocities and anglefire and those type places have a code that keeps their images from being linked to. keeps down on their bandwidth or something save and upload someplace else to display Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gentlemonkey Posted June 20, 2002 Report Share Posted June 20, 2002 great thread... I'll have to second Scottie's response. It's too bad things have to sink so low, but look on the bright side. if they didn't, we probably would never get great shows like "elimidate!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieDon'tSurf Posted June 20, 2002 Report Share Posted June 20, 2002 I dunno, seems like quite astretch to me... Even though the Starbucks mentality makes my gag-reflex kick in, I think the ad is mostly harmless... Should we be contacting the Tolkien estate and demanding that they pull the title to the next Lord of the Rings installment??? Not quite the same but people do seem to find fault with just about anything these days. As far as I'm concerned, two cups filled with some fruity drink mean diddly unless one wants to make it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts