It's not our fault...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:c3UJb.53854$I07.177401@attbi_s53...
"Tom Fleischman" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
In article , Tom Sixkiller
wrote:
IIRC Starbucks put out some kind of window dressing advertisment in
some of their shops in NY shortly after 9/11 that which depicted
towers
of coffee crumbling. It was very distasteful and they were forced to
withdraw them within a day or two.

Not even close! http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cool.htm

Yes, that's the one. Starbucks got a load of **** for those ads here in
the NY area when they appeared.

What do you mean, "yes, that's the one"? You described a depiction of
"towers of coffee crumbling". The actual ad merely showed two cups of
coffee sitting placidly in a field of grass! (And the ads were displayed
for a month or two, not "a day or two".)

They weren't even coffee...they were some sort of fruit "slurpee".

"Tom Fleischman" wrote in message
rthlink.net...

Yes, that's the one. Starbucks got a load of **** for those ads here
in
the NY area when they appeared.

How you qualified them as "distasteful" is really a curiosity (or did
you
mean to say some mental midgets found them "distasteful"?).


At the time I didn't really give it much of my attention, but I thought
that whatever wiseass at Starbuck's ad agency came up with that
campaign was pretty insensitive.



The point is that Starbucks garnered
nothing but bad publicity over the whole affair. They ads were viewed
by many, many people here in New York as distasteful. I have no idea
whether all the people who found them distasteful were "mental
migdets", whatever that characterization might mean to you, although I
doubt that on the whole they were.

Take a look at the picture again and tell me what Rhorschash test you've
been taking. You've already said you "didn't really give it much of my
attention". Sound's like you're following a rather retarded herd, and now
you're trying to rationalize. This also reminds me of the hugh flap by the
other mental midgets/vocbulary-challenged that rasied a stink overthe word
"niggardly".


I think that everything having to do with Starbucks in this thread has
been asked and answered and that's all I am going to have to say to you
on this subject.

In other words you stuck you foot in your mouth big-time and now hope no one
notices.

"Shirley" wrote in message
...
Tom Fleischman wrote:

[snip]
As you point out, the ad itself was fairly innocuous.
I think the word "collapse" was not well chosen,

So should the word "collapse" be unusable in advertising from now on
because it
describes what happened to the WTC? Should we pull any and all ads using
the
words "airplane", "fly", "tower", "twin" too? regardless of how much of a
stretch it is to suggest they were intentionally chosen? How many pest
control
service ads use words that *could be* associated with horrible events of
the
past century? I don't think anyone lacks compassion for victims and their
families, but if you're going to get that "sensitive," just about anything
could be linked in one way or another. Where do you draw the line?

but looking at it now I think it was a bit of a
stretch to connect it to the WTC.

Ya think?

Like a test for schizophrenia?

"Rich" wrote in message
om...
We've had good luck with our local Starbucks, they generously donated
four huge carafes of coffee for our Challenge Air event at FDK last
October. They even supplied all the cups, cream etc.

www.challengeair.com

Rich
(my real email )

Local stores, for any company, are usually more "attuned" to their local
_customers_. Then again...