Starbucks vs Starbucks

Starbucks definitely redefined the coffee business and showed what a strong brand can add to a mere commodity such as coffee. It is selling an experience, rather than a product, in a way that can serve as a how-to guide for many brands out there. Nevertheless, they too, have tried jump on the bandwagon of being everything to everybody. Introducing such item as Starbucks liquor or ice cream in the past, it fell victim to the typical management thinking that hurts us marketers: expand the business, rather than the brand and market share. That didn’t go anywhere. As a result, they lost the position of America’s No. 1 coffee retailer to good old Dunkin. Fortunately, the new CEO Howard Schulz, decided to get back to the roots of the business, which is coffee (surprise, surprise).

But now they try to get into the instant coffee business. That hurts anybody concerned the nature of building brands. And the taste test are supposed to prove that the powder stuff tastes as good as the real thing? Common, lets be honest. That move devalues the loser as much as it praises the winner. And that in its own stores! It would have been a great attack of an instant coffee brand against Starbucks, similar to the Pepsi Challege in the 80s against Coke. But the world’s leading gourmet coffee brand rather decided to set up blind tests directed only against themselves. That hurts.

Francesco Wesel
Integrated Marketing Communication
www.francescowesel.com