Starbiucks Brings Back Topless Mermaid Logo


To the ire of a Seattle Kent Elementary School Principal who is requiring her teachers to place protective covers over their Starbucks coffee cups, Starbacks, to mark its 35th anniversary, is bringing back its original logo - a topless mermaid with her fins spread - to Washington and Oregon. We're thinking this isn't going to go over very well.

by Steve Hall    Comments (22)     File: Brands, Strange     Sep-12-06     
Advertising Jobs

Enjoy what you've read? Subscribe to Adrants Daily and receive the daily contents of this site each day along with free whitepapers.


I live in Portland and was sitting at Starbuck's this weekend. A family of mom, dad, young daughter (maybe 4 years-old), grandma and grandpa were all enjoying beverages and treats when grandma reads in the newspaper about the very cups they were drinking from. She discusses with mom who shields her mouth with her hand (so as to not be heard by her daughter), holds up her cup and whispers, "I know...I can't believe it...she has nipples and she's all spread!" I nearly blew latte out of my nose!

Posted by: David Paull on September 12, 2006 2:25 PM

Agreed, Steve - Bigtime Backfiring in the Offing, which is why they only unveiled the logo in their original market, the Northwest. This little test will flop and they'll quickly revert to the arguably more seductive and less wanton mermaid.

It's not like the San Diego Chargers going with white helmets to mark an anniversary, Starbucks orignal logo was changed for a reason - marketing. They covered her up because Maxim sells to the general public better than Hustler does.

Posted by: Jetpacks on September 12, 2006 4:28 PM

Both times you typoed Starbucks name.

Posted by: Monica on September 12, 2006 6:11 PM

Iím waiting for the throwback Land Oí Lakes logo.

Now thatíll be hot.

Posted by: makethelogobigger on September 12, 2006 7:54 PM

since when are elementary school teachers able to afford starbucks?

Posted by: HighJive on September 12, 2006 11:56 PM

Hey, bear with me folks but it would be great if everyone could list their height after their comments. It helps me determine the worthiness of their comment. This is not meant to disparage, only to inform.

Seriously, and thanks.

Oh, and by the way, I'm 6'3. It only seems fair to me to participate.

Posted by: tall rick on September 13, 2006 12:11 AM

At least she doesn't have an eating disorder and she hasn't been airbrushed?


Posted by: Jack on September 13, 2006 12:40 AM

Sometimes, it seems, our country increasingly, desperately needs to RELAX.

Posted by: Eric on September 13, 2006 3:05 AM

That would be a good cup to keep up in the covered for 10 years I bet it may bring a heafty collecters fee to the person

Posted by: Kris on September 13, 2006 4:13 AM

Covered? Do you mean cupboard? What's with the atrocious spelling on this thread?

Posted by: Charles on September 13, 2006 8:27 AM

if im going too spend 3 dollers on a cup of cofee i expect to sea a little scin. i move they try real women. big hit with the kids.

(paying the speling problims forward).

Posted by: nalts on September 13, 2006 8:53 AM

The new/old logo is not confined to the Seattle area; I noticed some new StarbucksCards in a store in Nashua, New Hampshire bearing the wantonly exhibitionist mermaid logo (actually I wouldn't have noticed except for the clerk mentioning it to me). I don't know about the coffee cups, but on the small card, you need to whip out your 10x Agfa Loupe to see any, umm, "details". Still, there are breasts showing, heaven forbid! Maybe Starbucks should accomodate the offended fudamentalists and cover up the mermaid in a concealing burqa...

Posted by: MrWhipple on September 13, 2006 9:17 AM

If the mermaid is a mythical creature, then it follows that her breasts do not actually exist. Ergo this is a fuss about nothing.


Posted by: FishNChimps on September 13, 2006 9:23 AM

If I'm paying $5 for coffee, a little nipple goes a long way.

Posted by: tom lout on September 13, 2006 9:53 AM

Since when do your editors allow this many misspellings in one entry ;) ?

Posted by: John Engler @ UnsubCentral on September 13, 2006 10:20 AM

What editors? :-)

Posted by: Steve Hall on September 13, 2006 10:27 AM

StarBiucks and Starbacks ... those were the misspellings. Just giving you a hard time ;) Get the whip out and work those editors harder ;)

Posted by: John Engler @ UnsubCentral on September 13, 2006 11:57 AM

It's not a mermaid, it's a actually Melusine!

Posted by: Ed Catto on September 13, 2006 2:43 PM

Reminds me of the classic Playboy cartoon of the mermaid sitting on a rock reading the book, "How to Perform Fellatio"

Get it? Cause, you know, there's nothing "down there" except fins 'n' stuff....

Oh nevermind.

Posted by: Stevie the K on September 13, 2006 3:17 PM

6' 3.5"

Posted by: makethelogobigger on September 13, 2006 4:58 PM

I wonder if the Seattle principal also thinks children under the age of 18 should not be allowed into art and science and natural history museums lest they catch sight of a female breast?

Posted by: PZR on September 14, 2006 9:30 AM

Utterly ridiculous. People these days are always making a mountain over a mole hill. If you don't want to see the cups than don't go to Starbucks, period.

To the poster (tallrick) who wanted height posted after each comment because it helps you determine the worthiness of the comment, are you SERIOUS???
You have to be a complete idiot if you think our height has anything to do with the worthiness of our comments. By the way, I noticed YOU didn't even post anything regarding the topic so in fact your 6'3 height wasn't very worthy now was it?

~Sabrina Lily~

Posted by: Sabrina Lily on September 24, 2006 7:08 PM

Post a comment