June 17, 2002 12:26 PM Subscribe
A writer from the NY Post calls Starbucks HQ and says a reader told them that the company's "collapse into cool" ad campaign was too close a reference to Sept. 11 (the campaign posters featured a dragonfly; perhaps the reader misconstrued it as an airplane). As a result, Starbucks pulls the ad, and just to cover its ass said it "had intended no link between the image of the beverages and the terror attacks." Is the company just making a cautious PR move, or is this going too far?
posted by risenc (27 comments total)
« Older In 1997, Scott Shuger created for Slate.com what w... | Fire at Internet Cafe 'forces'... Newer »