Search


  • WWW
    This Blog

  • Add to Technorati Favorites

About The Authors

  • Derrick Daye
    Managing Partner
    Email Derrick
    Derrick has spent the past 18 years helping organizations release the full potential of their brands. His experience is as deep as it is diverse encompassing the disciplines of advertising, branding, sales promotion and public relations. Most notably he has worked with the White House Press Corps, Johnson & Johnson and the National Basketball Association.

    Call The Blake Project - here's my cell:
    813.842.2260
  • Brad VanAuken
    Chief Brand Strategist
    Email Brad
    Recognized as one of the world’s leading experts on brand management and marketing, Brad wrote the best selling book Brand Aid, the first comprehensive practical, ‘how-to’ guide on building winning brands. A much sought after consultant and speaker, he writes extensively for the business press and academic journals and is regularly quoted in trade publications.

Categories

Top Posts

Recognition

  • TypePad Featured Weblog
  • Ad Age Power 150

    Featured in Alltop 9 Rules Member

« Great Moments in Copywriting: Ogilvy and the Beggar | Main | BrandQuote - January 19 »

January 18, 2008

Starbucks: A Falling Star?

It looks like things are tightening up in Latte Land. The economy and competition are making Starbucks' glorious run a lot more difficult to sustain.

The first sign of trouble came from the stock market. Starbucks' share price has been cut in half in the last year after more than a decade of nearly continuous growth.

The next sign was the firing of its CEO who is to be replaced by the man who built the business from just four stores, Howard Schultz. Now it has 15,000 locations in 43 countries. What Schultz is learning is that the bigger you are, the harder it is to manage. He promoted rapid growth and he now has to clean up the problems he fostered by probably building far too many stores.

On the competitive front, Dunkin Donuts and now McDonald's are threatening to take more and more business by offering a good cup of coffee at considerably less than those $3 to $4 a cup that you pay at Starbucks.

I find it interesting that Schultz is not too concerned about competition. He feels that the problem is with Starbucks itself and all he needs is to fix it. In many ways he is right but I'm not sure that he is focused on the right problem.

As I see it, when you are selling a very expensive product compared with the competition you are always faced with having to supply your customer with a rationale about why it is worth the extra money. When someone buys a $60,000 Mercedes to impress his or her friends and neighbors, you have to rationalize this purchase by telling your prospect that this car has amazing engineering that is worth the money. If you are selling a $10,000 Rolex you have to point out that each Rolex takes a year to build. People don't want to feel they are being ripped off even though they may be.

Starbucks never had real competition so it felt no pressure to tell people why its coffee costs so much. It figured if it opens more stores people will come. Well, recent sales suggest people are beginning to not come, probably because of the economy. In fact, Starbucks was so successful it didn't even feel the need to advertise and has only started to do this recently.

Unfortunately, its ads haven't said very much about its coffee. And if McDonald's does a reasonable job with its latte, the question of "Why pay so much?" could become a big issue. I’m not saying that a Starbucks customer would be happy in a Dunkin Donuts or, heaven forbid, a McDonald's. But, if it comes up with even an almost-as-good product, questions will be asked about the value of those expensive cups of coffee.

Ironically, Howard Schultz wrote a memo to the CEO in 2007 entitled "The Commoditization of the Starbucks Experience." While it was about "watering down of the Starbucks experience," I feel that he had the right word in "commoditization." If its customers don't begin to hear from Starbucks about why its coffee is worth the money, they'll begin to think that coffees and lattes are becoming commoditized. McDonald's has a fancy machine similar to Starbucks' machine. So why should they pay so much more for the coffee from a Starbucks machine? Aren't all the machines producing similar coffee? Is it just a matter of machines? Hey, for that matter, I can now buy an expensive coffee machine and do it myself.

You see the problem. Starbucks has been so busy building stores that it failed to build perception about why its coffee is better and worth the money. I suspect there is a story there but it has failed to tell it with drama. There's an old axiom in marketing, "What you advertise, what you sell and what you make your money on can be three different things." I'm going to Starbucks for the coffee, not CDs or movies or even food. That's why its coffee is what they should advertise.

What Schultz has to do is obvious. By not telling its coffee story, it has a potential commoditization problem. Now he has to fix it by telling that story.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b74a69e200e54fe48e768833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Starbucks: A Falling Star?:

Comments

Hmmm, is the Starbucks brand really about the coffee? Isn't that kind of like saying Nike is about the shoes? Or Disneyworld is about the rides?

Is Starbucks facing a differentiation problem? Perhaps. But is coffee the answer? I dunno. Seems a bit of a disconnect to make the Starbucks brand about the features and benefits of coffee.

Starbucks has always struck me as a coffee bar that's more "bar" than "coffee." People want to hang out in Starbucks no matter how mediocre the coffee is (consistent, but mediocre). There has ALWAYS been places to get better coffee.

People will never want to hang out in McDonalds or Dunkin Donuts like they do in a Starbucks, no matter how good they make their coffee.

I don't think McD's or DD is trying to steal market share from Starbucks. I think they are simply responding to the expectations of a more coffee-savvy society. These guys are probably just trying to reclaim lost coffee revenue.

I think Starbucks, especially in the US, faces dual-markets. One is the sort of 'atmospheric' market, aimed at those seeking the 'coffee shop experience'. The other is the more practically minded, and larger, market of mass consumption.

It is true that Starbucks has for a long time tried to sell more than coffee - in a way its has to, since 'good' coffee is to a large extent subjective. Anyone can, and every coffee drinker will, have their own favorite brew. En mass, it is simply not possible to appease everyone. Starbucks' biggest success was bringing espresso based coffees to the American market in large quantities.

The danger it faces from Dunkin Donuts and McDonalds is not an infringement of its atmosphere market, it is bottoming out of mass 'grab and go' market. How does a 3~4 dollar Venti Caramel Macchiato stack up against a 2.50 McDs latte - one that is handed out at the drive-thru? In a recession economy Starbucks should focus on value marketing (in-house half-priced refills) and the like. Starbucks is still the king of the 'coffee house experience', but its profit relies on business people with not even 5 minutes of time, much less 5 hours.

I agree with Jeffry, I don't think the Starbucks brand is about the coffee, so its competition may be companies with similar environments, such as Panera Bread

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Partners

  • +2 marketing Consultants FREE Marketing Magazine Subscriptions Scent Marketing Institute Free Subscription

Prefer email to a blog?

  • Sign up below and we'll send new posts to your email inbox. We'll never spam, sell or trade your address.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

BSI on your Phone or Blog

  • Our Feed In A Widget

    Get this widget from Widgetbox
  • Our Feed On Your Phone

Featured Reading

2009 Brand Education Seminars



  • The Blake Project offers comprehensive seminars on many key branding topics. They are designed to educate and empower executives, brand managers and marketing professionals to release the full potential of their brands. Download 2008BrandEducation.pdf (675.2K)

Subscribe to the Brand Management Newsletter


  • A leading source for brand management insight, strategy and advice for marketing oriented leaders and professionals.







Follow BSI

Top Ten

  • Benefits of Building Strong Brands
    1. Increased revenues and market share
    2. Decreased price sensitivity
    3. Increased customer loyalty
    4. Additional leverage with vendors and retailers (for manufacturers)
    5. Increased profitability
    6. Increased stock price, shareholder value and sale value
    7. Increased clarity of vision
    8. Increased ability to mobilize an organization's people and focus its activities
    9. Increased ability to expand into new product and service categories
    10. Increased ability to attract and retain high quality employees