Schultz masterfully plays both sides of the fence in his memo, defending decisions he had a hand in making as being good business at the time they were made and then condemning them in hindsight. In addition to the La Marzoccas, Schultz mourns the loss of fumigation-by-roasted beans at the hands of new flavor-lock packaging.
Schultz is valiantly trying to reinvigorate the 'magic' of Starbucks by calling for the return of the shorter, slower espresso machines, making their merchandise more functional than artful, getting the scent just right. I get that he's referring to the 'overall experience, the feel of being in a trendy, indie coffee shop where the beans are organically shade grown and roasted to order right behind the counter, where everyone knows your name - but his tactics seem miscalculated and are not likely to mitigate the company's most pressing problems which involve not aesthetics, but involve fair trade, environmental and corporate responsibility, social accountability, workers' rights (globally), and the risk of becoming a symbol of oppressive world domination by a multinational corporations that profit by selling addictive products and imparting mass externalities upon the environment and their labor forces. Oh, wait.
I'm not pro or anti big box/corporate America per se. I'm pro environment, pro worker's rights, pro fair trade, anti anticompetetive practices, pro social and corporate responsibility...If these are the issues changing my wait from 2 to 10 minutes, I'm happy to accommodate. But don't do it so I can watch the milk being steamed.
Schultz seems to be barking up the wrong tree. And the tree is so wrong that I wonder if he's not mounting a strawman mea culpa to divert attention from the company's real problems by 'confessing' that the stores aren't as cozy as they could be and that he's really sorry and you saw the memo, he's working on it. Give 'em a break. If it's not a strawman, then I still maintain it's the wrong tree - If you ask the 16th person in line who has to stand outside in the 30 degree morning, propping the door open with her new leather 3.5'' knee-highs while she clutches an umbrella in one hand and her 'tote' in the other what she thinks of the new espresso machines, she'd probably say "what new machines...those are new?" and upon being apprised of Schultz's dilemma, she'd probably prefer them because they're faster. And don't get me started on the scent. Where are these warehouse-sized, wind tunnel-ventilated Starbucks stores where the opening of one of the new flavor lock packages doesn't instantly saturate the air with the unmistakable smell of - is that coffee? Can we be sure?
But I do have to hand it to Schultz for sweating the small stuff. He's outing himself on subtleties that most patrons don't notice. I've worked in foodservice. I've seen corporate headquarters drive franchise chains into the ground by refusing to release their deathgrip on what Schultz terms "cookie cutter"-ness, blaming instead well-intentioned managers who try to salvage what's left of brand loyalty as they go down with the ship by daring to give a customer a combo that's (gasp!) not on the menu. But consistency isn't what ultimately does a business in, in fact there's something to be said for predictability in a chain (and no amount of coffee bean smell or chats with the baristas are going to fool Starbucks customers into thinking they're not standing in a chain store, even for a second) which is that customers know what to expect when they walk in the door. I do think Starbucks is consistent. But they are consistent with a good product and I don't think the sameness is what's causing problems. Those of us who would rather have a leisurely time of watching our morning coffee being made clearly have some time on our hands and are welcome to drive 'out of our ways' to a place that does that. I'm not saying that's not me once in a while. I'm just saying that on the days that I don't have that kind of time, I'm glad I don't have to choose between being late to class and falling asleep in class.
Recommendations:
- One thing Starbucks could do to attract those corner cafe dwellers is to expressly differentiate it's store types, like 24 Hour Fitness clubs - you have the typical Starbucks stores, and then you have Starbucks "Cafes" that bring back the heritage and passion that are apparently missing, Starbucks "Active" would sell all the functional products the French baristas can think up. They've already started this 'preference discrimination,' in a sense, by popping up inside supermarkets. There are Starbucks vending machines in my law firm, on every floor. No 'down home' plush chair feel there, but if you can get the customer a good, reliable product with that kind of convenience, run with it. The problem with this idea of course is that Starbucks would inevitably be accused (as if it hasn't been already) of removing every last niche and shred of viability of potential competition. The company could effectively stomp out the genuine heritage it seeks to copy by following this advice.
- You need to have more than two items on the menu come in below $3.50
- Turn the music down. Seriously. It's not that good.
- Don't try to pass of grocery store staples like yogurt and water at a 237% markup. We know what you're up to.
- If you do nothing else - bring the free wireless.
No comments:
Post a Comment