Legs spread? She has some sort of flexi spring legs that look like fried shrimp coming out of her belly?

It's just some generic mythic type image you see all over the place when some company tries to market its image as alt/earthy and slightly spiritual.

Maybe the tiny penciled breasts could be "vulgar" if you really force it but I doubt parents will be finding starbucks cups flattened under their sons mattress any time soon.

Some people have too much damn time on their hands.

Oh noes!!!!

I see...naked, crudely sketched boobies!!! Horrors!!! Obviously, its a sign of the moral breakdown of society!!! We're all gonna go to hell just for looking at it!!!

Who friggin' cares? BFD. Maybe if it was a little more lifelike (and it couldn't get much less) he might have a point, but as it is, again, BFD.

I dont see her legs...

I see her boobs thought... i guess that is a decent gripe... a major company haveing a 1/2 nude woman on the logo.

I just dont see her legs...

I like the old logo better though...

*****
Hmm, now that you posted the new logo to the webpage... is that a T&C violation...

I still dont see the legs...
**

Is it a two-tailed mermaid?

[edit on 5/15/2008 by TKainZero]

Honestly I do not know why they changed it....if you look at it they went from a happy logo, to one where the woman looks ghastly. Horrible choice in my opinion...perhaps there is more meaning behind it.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by kdial1]

legs or not, they're spread eagle. A dump truck could take a load off in there. And the toplessness doesn't help at all. Old logo = better logo. New one just...sucks, poor artist work or design team or whatever they used.

Originally posted by vor78
Who friggin' cares?

- Parents of young children.
- Conservative Christians.
- Conservative Jews.
- Muslims
- WOMEN.


This is the first I have seen it. Why did they change it? Is it REALLY changed or is this a joke. I hope it's a joke.

to the new logo (if it's real)

It looks like a two-tailed mermaid to me.

Is there really a shortage of things to complain about in the world? How about a taking trip to Myanmar and see what these whiners can do there.

I don't know why they changed it either. The new logo does look like a half naked woman. Then looks like she is hold two fish or some other sort of marine life. I don't see where the spread legs come into play any where.

The logo is actually not new. They are going back to their original logo.

The logo is a throw-back to what the chain used when it first opened in Seattle more than 35 years ago.

Originally posted by kdial1
Anyone know what she is holding in this logo?

She is a mermaid and holding her twin tails.

"[Creative partner Terry Heckler] 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. That early siren, bare-breasted and Rubenesque, was supposed to be as seductive as coffee itself."

Didn't you read the article?

I can see that some would be uptight about the logo because she is bare breasted. This wouldn't be my first choice.


[edit on 5/15/2008 by Hal9000]

I don't see anything 'outrageously' wrong either, but I too have to ask why change the old logo to this?

Marketing ploy perhaps?? Have an alternative logo sitting in the wings while this one, not being too out of taste, heaps up the publicity for them.

Not a bad idea.

Originally posted by Hal9000

Didn't you read the article?

[edit on 5/15/2008 by Hal9000]

Must have skimmed passed that part, thanks

Originally posted by vor78
I find no offense in it at all.

Let me rephrase -

SOME people with small children.
SOME Conservative Christians.
SOME Conservative Jews
SOME Muslims
SOME Women

I find it in bad taste.

Couple of points I'd like to raise:

1. Horrible business decision. Why would they throw away an extremely well aired and well known logo? Its bewildering. They should learn from the most iconic brand in the world- Coke, who have never changed their logo even a century later.

2. This is a non-issue to me as regards to morality. The picture isnt graphic, it isnt likely to incite lewd acts. I dont particularly like the logo, but I doubt it will stop me drinking coffee. I prefer local cofee shops or failing that, Nero isnt bad.

According to the article, the new logo is the original logo without the word spice. It is an image taken from an old Norse woodcutting featuring a two-tailed mermaid or siren.

The new logo, which is now the old logo, is the same two-two tailed mermaid only shown in a more modest manner.

I think that the more revealing logo was fine for Seattle, but the less revealing logo is better for a nationwide audience.

It might be a silly issue to many, but it might be just enough to discourage others from spending $3-$5 on a one dollar cup of coffee.

It's a mythical creature. Correct me if I am wrong but don't parents take their children to the art museum where there are half naked art works of women all the time? I mean come on, you have to be one miserable and bitter person to make a big deal out of this.

Oh dear Lord! All I see is a half-naked female with her breasts exposed. I'm conversative in my views of people and I don't like seeing something like this on my coffee cup. However, this new logo should encourage people to buy those plastic thermos instead and thereby reducing the amount of cardboard cups filling up the landfills. I dunno: I'm tired of spending too much on sweetened, caffeinated liquid that I could easily brew myself for less pennies at home.