I’m sorry, call me insensitive, but I don’t see what all this (local NYC) hoopla is about.
When it comes to advertising conspiracies I’m somewhere in the middle. I neither agree with Cecil (that subliminal messages don’t exist) or Wilson Brian Key (who comes to some hairball conclusions about ads that employ subliminal techniques).
Fact is, some Madison Ave ad exec is probably gonna get torn a new one because some people (NY Post readers, patrons down at the local bar and alot of radio show hosts) are equating this “Collapse into Cool” window display ad for Starbucks with the 9/11 disaster in downtown NYC.
I’d be blind or ignorant to deny similarities but these molehills[ol][li]The 2 cups are situated in the same fashion of towers #1 and #2. []The dragonfly appears to be approaching the cups just like the jet that crashed into the towers. []The “Collapse into Cool” slogan is is a thinly veiled reference to the demise of the WTC.[/ol] aren’t mountains in my opinion.[/li]
I just hope the NY Post, or the majority of its’ readership doesn’t come across this Spanish satire or all hell may break loose.
I believe the people who were upset about this are people who work close to the WTC site. This ad was displayed on a billboard down there.
I think if this upsets people who were affected by the collapse of the towers, they should remove the ad. Who are we to say what triggers a bad memory in someone?
Granted the ad may seem innocuous to people who weren’t directly effected by the tragedy, but I can see how that ad could remind someone of it, especially those who work in that area every day.
I don’t think I would have immediately associated the ad with the 9/11 disaster, but I don’t see how the slogan “Collapse Into Cool” could be anything but a reference to the collapse of the twin towers. Why would you “collapse” into a frozen tea?
Who in the world sat down at Starbucks’ ad agency and said, “Yeah, that’s a great idea.” Who then approved it? What PR department in their right mind would say this was OK?
Let’s not forget that the Starbucks store near the WTC on 9/11 was charging the rescue workers for bottles of water! Meanwhile an Arab owned deli was giving the rescue workers anything they asked for! Starbucks later coughed up a big check to the NYC FD as an apology. There is, no doubt, a lot of hate in NYC for Starbucks, and this ad only gives people more fodder.
Well, I still have qualms over the common percieved notion that companies should be obligated to “help out” for fear of bad press. Real charity comes from the willingness to help, and it should never be a PR issue. In other words, I think it would have been just as bad if Starbucks helped out for fear that profits would dip if they didn’t. I’d rather they not do anything at all then to participate in a farce like that.
How 'bout just helping out because you’re near one of the largest disasters in history? How 'bout putting human life over profits, not because its good PR, but because its the right thing to do?
The guys that owned the deli I mentioned were giving things to the rescue workers before anyone knew anything other than a plane had crashed into the building! They didn’t know that a bunch of whacked out Middle-Easterners had hijacked four planes and were deliberately crashing them into buildings. They helped out because it was the right thing to do. The schmucks at the Starbucks store simply held the corporate line that everybody has to pay for everything, even though they knew that a plane had crashed into a building! They were more concerned about keeping their jobs than any loss of human life. That’s pretty sick, if you ask me.
I think that if some local people are reminded of 9-11 and upset, that’s legit and the Starbuck’s should take them down just out of courtesy if nothing else.
For the Post to say they are “mocking 9-11” is asinine in the extreme, however. Granted, it’s the Post, but still.
Oh, and Eve, you are definitely going to hell for that one
So you’d rather they play the hypocrite and pretend they care more about profits than “helping out”?
I think you misunderstand. I’m all for helping out. I would have been a volunteer myself if I were in New York at the time. What I don’t agree with is the social pressure that people place on others to help out. This should be a personal decision for each and every person, and not dictated by “what others would think”. When you pressure someone into helping out, then the help given, in my opinion, would be something akin to forced labor. I don’t think it’s any different with corporations, especially since “the right thing to do” for a company is to make profit for its investors.
But once again, I’m all for helping out in whatever way I can.
At the risk of totally hijacking this thread, stop and think about what you said for a moment. If I think that company X’s practices are wrong, and I choose not to purchase their products, I am exercising my right not to support practices I disagree with. If the corporation wants my business they will have to modify their practices in order to increase their profits. This is wrong? I’m sorry, but I don’t think so. By not purchasing said company’s products, I am applying pressure on them to change.
I agree that we shouldn’t hijack this thread, so I’ll end this by saying that it is entirely your prerogative to apply pressure on any company you wish. Just don’t pressure me to apply pressure on them as well.
