(17) A Goliath Can Become a David Again
Starbucks began with the mission of wanting to get the world to appreciate better tasting coffee. To put it simply, Starbucks has accomplished this mission. With the popularity and sustainability of the company, the next step is to make the transition from Starbucks as coffee “brand” to Starbucks as beverage “icon.” From this perspective, Starbucks is an upstart, competing against the old-school beverage icons like Coke and Pepsi. Starbucks considers itself a David because, compared to Goliath-proportioned Pepsi’s $30 billion and Coke’s $22.5 billion yearly revenues, its annual $6.5 billion is a blip in the megalithic beverage industry machine.
Posted in Discuss the Tribal Truths
I am not sure about Starbucks’ strategy of outsourcing the customer experience. I truly believe that if there is a weakness of the Starbucks brand, it is their strategy of selling licensing to other corporations such as book stores and large supermarket chains. I have experienced tremendous inconsistency when going to such licensees and have often felt that the employees at these locations lack the passion for coffee that regular baristas have. I think it is definitely a brand negative. I now question whether Starbucks is really acting as a David or pretending to be.
Posted by Clive de Castro on October 17th, 2006 at 9:46 pmThe licensing issue is one that Starbucks partners debate daily. The old school partners are not keen on \”third parties\” being responsible for delivering a \”Starbucks Experience.\” The new school partners clearly understand licensing the concept to well-established hospitality partners helps Starbucks be everywhere its customers expect it to be.
What\\\’s interesting is that internal customer research reveals licensed concepts stores are on-par with delivering the same experiences customers receive at 100% company-owned and operated stores. The skeptical marketer in me questions the research because I’ve received sub-par experiences at SBUX locations in airports, hotels, and grocery stores.
Posted by johnmoore on October 18th, 2006 at 6:43 amI tend to agree with the old school partners. The research shouldn’t even matter. It’s not even possible to re-create or morphe the true in-store Starbucks experience at a grocery store or airport. Without the music it’s not really SBUX. In fact, I have found that, as a truly passionate long time customer, it has diminished the quality perception I once held of Starbucks. It is turning Starbucks into more of a commodity brand and I really don’t buy into the theory that SBUX is only going where customers expect them to be. I for one never expected them to be at airports or at grocery stores. I think this theory is somewhat presumptious.
Posted by Clive de Castro on October 18th, 2006 at 8:16 amClive … the number one complaint customers have about Starbucks is that there isn’t one closer to them. Customers expect and want Starbucks to be closer to their workplace, closer to them while traveling, etc. Hence, the being everywhere customers expect them to be.
Posted by johnmoore on October 18th, 2006 at 3:05 pm