Starbucks Reverting Back To Old Logo?

[LoligerBS]

Starbucks is releasing a new brew tomorrow. Free samples too.

The cups for this coffee is going to have the original logo. This blog says they're going back to it, but is it just a temporary thing? Has anybody heard of this?

http://blogs.phillyburbs.com/blog.php/?p=26754&cat=228

What do you guys think?

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Huh. There was a full page ad in the New York Times today featuring the naked lady logo that heretofore could only be seen at the Pike Place Market location here in Seattle. I was surprised to see that with no explanation -- the ad was just a big cup of coffee.

Here's a great side-by-side:

Funnily enough, the page I took those images from runs the following text:

Starbucks is turning 35 ? and apparently, the folks at Seattle corporate coffee headquarters feel the company can let it all hang out, just like back in the good old hippie era when Starbucks sold its first cups.

Back in 1971, the two-tailed mermaid in Starbucks? logo (pictured above left) featured bare breasts and open fins. The logo came from a 16th-century Norse woodcut.

The more modern, less provative logo is from 1992 ? after Starbucks became a publicly traded company. The old-school version is being given away for a limited time in Starbucks? stores in Washington and Oregon.

The warning on Starbucks? cups ? ?Careful, the beverage you?re about to enjoy is extremely hot.? ? has never rung more true, even if the hotter logo is only for a limited time.

Just like back in 2006, I would imagine this is a limited run. I can't imagine middle America being too comfortable with big titties all over their coffee cups.

[Lee.]

Just like back in 2006, I would imagine this is a limited run. I can't imagine middle America being too comfortable with big titties all over their coffee cups.

I, for one, demand it.

[Gothamite]

Just like back in 2006, I would imagine this is a limited run. I can't imagine middle America being too comfortable with big titties all over their coffee cups.

Middle America needs to unclench.

[STL FANATIC]

I hope they're not switching because the newer logo is a much better logo.

But it's cool if this is for a limited time.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Got one this morning... and while it is the similar to the old logo and it is brown, there is new hair preventing exposure. Maybe middle America isn't ready...

[Gothamite]

What?

Pathetic.

[Jigga]

I hope they're not switching because the newer logo is a much better logo.

But it's cool if this is for a limited time.

I can only think of one thing better than titties and they sure as hell ain't putting THAT on the logo.

[Sodboy13]

In spite of the logo getting what one person at my office referred to as "The Ashcroft Treatment," I gotta say, the new coffee is pretty good. It beat the hell out of every other burnt, absurdly-strong roast I've had there.

Also, curse those Toffee Almond Bars for being so tasty.

And Greg, you've given me a great idea for a business, though I'm not sure how to successfully integrate lattes and lapdances without having all the profits devoured by liability insurance.

[Lee.]

I hope they're not switching because the newer logo is a much better logo.

But it's cool if this is for a limited time.

I can only think of one thing better than titties and they sure as hell ain't putting THAT on the logo.

That may be, but it could also explain the extra hair that CubsFan was speaking of...

[Cola]

you all are familiar with the sexual tendencies of sirens, correct? they were mermaids that lured men in with sex and then killed them. the starbucks logo was actually a borrowed logo but edited and merged in certain areas to "hide" the erotic areas.

It is pretty much that, without the "crotch" (can I say that?) area by merging the legs/fins of the mermaid/siren. they also toned up the belly and removed the belly button...and they did cover up her breasts with hair in later versions- i am assuming this is the version they are reverting to and not the one pictured about in this thread. for one of starbucks' anniversaries a few years back they reverted to that logo shown earlier in the thread and it caused a little stir among the public with the breasts exposed.

[Jigga]

Even better, big titties and a gut.

[BBTV]

Even better, titties and a big gut.

Rearranged some of the words to make it more accurate.

[Sodboy13]

Even better, big titties and a gut.

Hey, back in the day, that was "Rubenesque," and that's how they liked 'em.

Additionally, a latter-day poet once remarked, "The bigger the cushion, the sweeter the pushin'."

[Gothamite]

Here's the evolution of the Starbucks logo, where SC got the graphic from.

And yes, the new one has been covered up. Cowards.

Old:

New:

[STL FANATIC]

Are they cowards, or is there absolutely no doubt that they would have received a great many complaints costing them time and money in formal disputes, perhaps as far as court, and negative publicity to a certain market?

My vote is for the latter.

Sure, they could have done it anyway in the face of the overly sensitive crowd, but I really don't blame them for wanting to avoid the controversy.

And as another side, I'm not even sure it's that overly sensitive for a parent to be a little uneasy about their young children unnecessarily seeing a drawing of exposed breasts. Not something that would bother me now, or probably as a future father...but I can't be too up in arms about those who might be.

[Gothamite]

Well, I am a father. And I still call this cowardice. Worse yet, it's part of the infantilizing of our society. Try to childproof the world, you only turn adults into children.

Changing an image that's a hundred years old because some adolescents might point and snicker is just silly.

Somebody get David a fig leaf.

[footballfiji]

Well, I am a father. And I still call this cowardice. Worse yet, it's part of the infantilizing of our society. Try to childproof the world, you only turn adults into children.

Changing an image that's a hundred years old because some adolescents might point and snicker is just silly.

Somebody get David a fig leaf.

Bout time. I'm tired of having to see his marble-y junk all the time.

[JustForFun]

Are they cowards, or is there absolutely no doubt that they would have received a great many complaints costing them time and money in formal disputes, perhaps as far as court, and negative publicity to a certain market?

My vote is for the latter.

This is unfortunately true.

And as another side, I'm not even sure it's that overly sensitive for a parent to be a little uneasy about their young children unnecessarily seeing a drawing of exposed breasts. Not something that would bother me now, or probably as a future father...but I can't be too up in arms about those who might be.

What the fudge? The human body is a beautiful, natural thing. The real perverts are the people who think it's shameful for some reason, and impose their beliefs on the rest of society.

Of course I wouldn't want my kid to see raw, unbridled sexuality, but plain old nudity? Come on. There's a huge difference between nudity and sexuality, no matter what middle America thinks.

[-kj]

Why is it that the Midwest is always left to blame about these things?