Angry evangelical Christian starts viral campaign for Starbucks

A former Arizona pastor named Joshua Feuerstein was angry that Starbucks' Christmas cups this year have no recognizable holiday motif with the exception of the colour red. He is also angry that (according to him) Starbucks employees are forbidden to use the phrase "Merry Christmas."

So he took to Facebook with this rant and a video (which you can watch here):

Starbucks REMOVED CHRISTMAS from their cups because they hate Jesus ... SO I PRANKED THEM ... and they HATE IT!!!!  #share
Use #MERRYCHRISTMASSTARBUCKS
Follow --> Joshua Feuerstein
Posted by Joshua Feuerstein on Thursday, November 5, 2015

Not too bright, this fellow. But his post has been viewed more than 10 million times, and shared almost 400,000 times.

Which is really good for Starbucks.

After all, people will have to buy a Starbucks coffee to be able to pull off this "prank." Depending on the demographics of Mr. Feuerstein's followers, some might even be new customers. It's the exact opposite of a boycott, and the baristas will probably be mildly amused.

That is, as long as people don't bring their guns. That's just asinine.

Should we expect global brands to respect universal human rights?

Following the scorn heaped upon IKEA for deleting all adult women from the Saudi version of its catalogue, I think it's time to start talking about how we hold global brands accountable for how they operate in places without basic human rights.

This week, I noticed a picture going around that claimed to be from the door of a Pizza Hut in Jeddah:

Digging a little deeper, I found a 2007 blog post with more documentation of major brands giving in to sexist Saudi social and religious policy:

In this case, the policy of sex segregation is because women must expose their faces to eat, so no unmarried and unrelated man can be allowed to see them.

At McDonald's, the segregation is has created the "need" for restaurants to build parallel and non-communicating sections for (male) "singles" and "families".

Admittedly, this was five years ago. But has anything changed?

From 2009:

An American businesswoman was carted off to jail by religious police in Saudi Arabia for sitting with a male colleague at a Starbucks in Riyadh, the Times of London reported.
The woman, who spent a day behind bars, was strip-searched and forced to sign a false confession before being released, the newspaper said. The Times declined to publish her name at her request. 

The 37-year-old businesswoman works for a finance company in Riyadh. Her problem began when her office lost electricity. She and her male colleagues then went to a nearby Starbucks to use the coffee shop's Internet connection. 

She sat with a male colleague in the Starbucks' family area, the only place women are allowed to sit with men.  

"Some men came up to us with very long beards and white dresses. They asked 'Why are you here together?' I explained about the power being out in our office. They got very angry and told me what I was doing was a great sin," she told the Times. 

Following her arrest and interrogation, the woman was hauled before a judge.
"He said 'You are sinful and you are going to burn in hell.' I told him I was sorry. I was very submissive. I had given up. I felt hopeless," she told the Times. 

The newspaper said the woman had received a visit from officials at the U.S. embassy in Saudi Arabia. A U.S. official told The Times that it was being treated as "an internal Saudi matter" and refused to comment on her case.

And this year:

Western companies on Saudi land must comply with Saudi religious regulations. Fast-food restaurants such as McDonald's, Pizza Hut, Starbucks, and other US firms, for instance, maintain sex-segregated eating zones in their restaurants. The facilities in the women's section are usually lower in quality.

I will just flat out say it: I don't think brands that want to do business in a world that respects the equality and dignity of women should be doing business in places where women have no basic rights. Full stop.

Recently, I refused to work on a project for a North American educational institution (NDA prevents me from naming names) that wanted to recruit teachers for a Saudi school. They would happily accept applications from anyone, but in reality only wanted white males. Fuck that.

Everyone — EVERYONE — deserves the same rights and opportunities as everyone else, and cannot be denied them simply because of what's between their legs. Whether that is a major right such as education and voting, or more mundane things like being able to drive or buy junk food, the continued denial of this equality is an affront to anyone who believes women are free individuals.

IKEA, when they were called out by the media in their base of Sweden, issued this statement:

We should have reacted and realized that excluding women from the Saudi Arabian version of the catalogue is in conflict with the IKEA Group values. We are now reviewing our routines to safeguard a correct content presentation from a values point-of-view in the different versions of the IKEA Catalogue worldwide.

You may not like where I'm going with this post. After all, don't universal human rights guarantee freedom of religion? Isn't it the Saudis' business how they run their society?

Personally, I have no problem saying that the way women are treated in Saudia Arabia, and many other countries is wrong. I don't care whether the reason given is religion, tradition, or just fear of women's liberation. Human beings deserve better.

I cannot change Saudi Arabia. But I can let western brands know that we're watching them. If expansion into wealthy but oppressive countries is more important to them than respect for women's rights, then that belief should be seen as part of their global brand.

If you want a Starbucks coffee, go ahead and order one. What you have in your hand is a beverage that stands for sex segregation and arrest of women who dare order one without their husband or brother present. If you have a Big Mac attack, remember that somewhere a single woman has had to hire a taxi driver to take her through the drive-through to get one, because to walk into the restaurant would put her at risk of being beaten and arrested by so-called morality police. Same with your Pizza Hut hot dog stuffed greasewheel, or your Double Down.

When you support a brand, you are making its values part of your own. That's the way branding and identity work. Would you like fries with that misogyny?

This celebrity wardrobe malfunction brought to you by Starbucks

As an avid follower of Buzzfeed, I've been watching as their success has attracted more and more corporate sponsorship of what is essentially recycled content.

For example, recently Virgin Mobile posted "The 14 Best Pinterest Boards For Crazy Cat Ladies" and "13 Tasty Twitpics That Prove Fall Is The Most Awesome Season" and "23 Wildly Inappropriate YOLOs"all of which follow the Buzzfeed formula of numbered lists of inane content that reference current memes.

The first time I noticed this was when Arby's started posting sandwich-related content, to promote their new Reuben. Other brands have been on there with more-or-less brand-relevant content as well. Other corporate brand Buzzfeeders include Samsung Series 9 and Starbucks Doubleshot, which like Virgin, have their sponsored posts peppered into Buzzfeed's "Just Launched" feed to pick up views and engage fans.

But something strange is going on in the Starbucks feed. While there is the occasional "double" or "coffee" post, many of them are more about the espresso brand attribute of waking you up and getting your complete attention. Which I guess is why they sponsored actress Sofia Vergara's exposed bum last night.

What?

To be fair, it wasn't your typical paparazzi invasion of privacy. (The Colombian "Modern Family" actress shared it herself.) And Starbuck's didn't choose the post for their own feed. Instead, as part of their Buzzfeed strategy, Starbuck's also sponsored the "Bold" reaction button that appears (along with other reactions) at the bottom of each post:

By reacting to stories, Buzzfeed readers democratically attach these tags to posts and share them with their networks. So, when enough people decided that Ms. Vergara's bum was "bold," Starbuck's automatically got their logo in the header. Above a bare bum. That "looks like boobs".

This, coming from a brand that removed the breasts from their logo to go mainstream, then refused to stock Bruce Springsteen's Devils & Dust CD in 2005 because of the lyric "up the ass" in reference to negotiating sex with a prostitute. Now they're accidentally sponsoring lurid celebrity wardrobe malfunctions.

Hey, I'm all for brands loosening up and getting more personal. But I'm not sure this is the wisest direction for corporate brands to go in. They might just end up making an ass of themselves.

"Barrista! There are bugs in my vegan smoothie!"

At least they spelled "flavour" the proper way.

I don't know why vegans even bother with fast food. Remember when everyone was outraged by beef tallow in McDonald's fries? More recently, there was concern over hidden bacon in Chipotle's pinto beans.

Part of the problem is that there are two divergent customer demands: on one hand, people want junk food made with as many "natural" ingredients as possible; on the other are personal food restrictions based on religion, philosophy or allergy.

The latest big brand to be torn by this tension is Starbucks.

Via Tumblr

Jezebel explains that after "customers insisted that Starbucks start to use natural ingredients whenever possible," the coffee chain started using cochineal extract instead of chemical dye to make its strawberry soy smoothies pinker. (They also add lycopene, the pigment from tomatoes.)

Cochineal extract is certainly natural. To make it, you grind up a bunch of these guys:

Via this blog

The resulting pigment, known as carmine, has many industrial uses. And it's common in food.

Wikipedia says:

"Carmine is used as a food dye in many different products such as juices, ice cream, yogurt, and candy, and as a dye in cosmetic products such as eyeshadow and lipstick. Although principally a red dye, it is found in many foods that are shades of red, pink, and purple. As a food dye it has been known to cause severe allergic reactions and anaphylactic shock in some people. 

Food products containing carmine-based dye may be a concern for people allergic to carmine, or people choosing not to consume any or certain animals, such as vegetarians, vegans, and followers of religions with dietary law (e.g., kashrut in Judaism and halaal in Islam)."

The true nature of the ingredient went viral in the veggie community when a vegan Starbucks employee leaked it to This Dish is Veg. There was soon a petition up at Change.org which so far has 2,427 signatures.

Starbucks isn't budging yet, though. Corporate spokesman Jim Olson told msnbc.com, “We certainly respect and understand the interest this is getting, but it is a very common ingredient in foods and juices and beverages.”

There's actually a very simple solution to this problem: leave out the dye, and expect customers to accept a paler pink smoothie. Hell, I make my own for breakfast all the time. Strawberries add their own "natural" colour. It just isn't the bright pink that people seem to think they want.

Do you think that such a thing is possible?

Starbucks now selling "vegatable" juice #FdAdFriday

This, according to Jezebel, is actual signage from Starbucks' new juice bar, Evolution Fresh, just opened in Bellevue, Washington. Imagine how many people would have had to look at that text during the design, approval, printing and posting of the sign. I guess it's true that literacy is in decline.

At least it wasn't "vagatable".

New web series accelerates the Starbucksization of McDonald's Canada

McDonald's Canada continues to try to be Starbucks. First it was better coffee. Then it was the "McCafé" makeover at their restaurants. Now, they've hired a sitcom writer to make them McDonald's-promoting webisodes of something derivative of Seinfeld, Friends and The Office:



It's purposefully awkward, with hamfisted product placements. But will it convince Canadians that McDick's is a cool place to hang out all day, sip a latte, and enjoy free wifi? Isn't that something the Starbucks has decided isn't really a great business model?



I just don't get it. McDonald's brand is built on cheap comfort food and parents buying their children's love with Happy Meals. The sooner they drop the pretentious makeover, the better.

Tip via Burger Business

Starbucks falsely accused of racism?

This poster, via Gawker, appeared recently in Starbucks locations in France to remind customers to watch their valuables. A group called SOS Racisme complained that it was racist, because they saw the man portrayed as a brown-skinned  stereotype of a pickpocket. Starbucks took them down.


A simple case of successful activism?


Depends how you look at it. And whether or not you have seen the other poster in the series:

Do you read this illustration of a smiling woman as a portrayal of a criminal? Or do you see her as a potential victim?


Here's the problem. France, like many other once-homogeneous nations becoming increasingly multicultural, has a serious racism problem. It's so bad that apparently groups who specialize in speaking out against it see even an innocent portrayal of a brown person through a racist lens.


These people are both, obviously, supposed to be customers. The man is presumably a student or a young worker, with his casual attire, backpack, smartphone, wallet and laptop. The woman is perhaps a little older, carrying a purse (although that may be my prejudice peeking through).


There is nothing to see here, really. In context, it is clear that the illustrator, agency and client were just trying to reflect France's modern diversity in positive portrayals of customers. And it backfired horribly.


Should Starbucks have tried to defend itself? Or is this kind of discussion best avoided by PR-vulnerable brands?

Instant Brand Fail

Have you seen the Starbucks "Via" instant coffee taste test ads yet?



No, I am not taking the taste test. If I wanted to drink instant coffee, I'd drink instant coffee. Or perhaps, in a pinch, I'd drink fresh-brewed coffee that is indistinguishable from instant. Which, according to this ad, is what Starbucks has been selling for years.

Predatory CSR? Or do I just need more coffee?

Just a short post today. Read it during your coffee break.

I was on my way to work this morning, and decided I needed more coffee. So I got off the bus two stops early to go to Bridgehead, my favourite ethical coffee chain.

But before I arrived there, a young woman was in my face offering "FREE STARBUCKS COFFEE!":



Not only was the coffee free, but it was offered as a corporate social responsibility outreach to garner donations to the Children's Wish Foundation, a truly heart-rending charity that grants dying children's last wishes.

Nothing wrong with that, eh? Except for the location: smack between Bridgehead and Second Cup, Starbuck's major Canadian competitor (besides Timmies, that is!):



Am I just way too cynical this morning, or is Starbucks the cynical one? Because to me, this looked like run-of-the-mill predatory marketing hiding behind a worthy cause.

Hey! I'd probably do something like this for one of my clients, too, but it still elicited a comment from the guy serving my coffee at Bridgehead. "We do it every day, but whatever", he said, referring to Bridgehead's well-known commitment to environmentalism, sustainable third world economic development, and fair trade.

Maybe I'm just overthinking this, as someone who knows what goes on in the boardrooms. After all, the booth was located on a busy downtown corner on the westbound Transitway. (Although it could have easily located on the busy eastbound, a block north.)

Oh well. I hope the wish people raised good money for a great cause, despite the rain.