Focus, In Memoriam | p.2
November 13th, 2009
posted by: Dustin Britt | 8 Comments »

Revenues down. 600+ stores closed. Employees laid off. And traffic at U.S. stores dropped for the first time in its history.

Where is Starbucks heading?

Starbucks humble beginnings in Seattle’s Pike Place Market were birthed out of one central idea – to bring the café culture to America.

But over the past decade we’ve watched Starbucks do nothing short of diluting this brand focus…their big idea that transformed America from perceiving coffee as a cheap vehicle of caffeine to an experience they were willing to pay 8 times as much for. We’ve watched as they have added countless merchandise, grocery store products, prepared food, nuts, music, and the list goes on.

So what’s wrong with growing? Isn’t Starbucks still a $16B company? Haven’t they simply done what every company wants to do…grow?

So how does a company like Starbucks keep growing when adding ’stuff’ undermines the value of the brand?

Instead of getting rid of stores, they should have been getting rid of all the ‘junk’ diluting their brand. Its tempting to first blame a weak economy or overly aggressive growth as their problem. But watching their focus dwindle and therefore the filter by which they make growth decisions weaken, one can watch how they’ve paved the road for competitors to chip away at their formidability. They’ve slowly removed the café culture experience from the Starbucks brand value.

I’ll let CEO Howard Schultz take the reigns from here, “Of course, every change that Starbucks has made over the past few years – automated espresso machines, preground coffee, drive-throughs, fewer soft chairs and less carpeting – was made for a reason: to smooth operations or boost sales, two inescapable goals for a publicly traded company. Those may have been the right choices at the time, Schultz wrote, but together they ultimately diluted the coffee-centric experience. ‘We want to have the courage to do the things that support the core purpose and the reason for being and not veer off and get caught up in chasing revenue, because long-term value for the shareholder can only be achieved if you create long-term value for the customer and your people,’ Schultz says. ‘We have to get back to what we do.‘”

Next entry we’ll look at a company that has taken the simple, authentic experience that made them great and sustained growth within that focus.
References:

This entry was posted on Friday, November 13th, 2009 at 8:00 am and is filed under Branding, Business. You can follow any responses to this entry through the feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

8 Comments

"Great post. It's amazing how easy it is to take one step and then another and then turn around and notice you're nowhere near where you started or where you had thought you were going. Chasing butterflies rarely breeds success."
- Charles
"I would also say that there comes a point where integrity must be sacrificed for growth. Unless you are content with staying steady somewhere and simply innovating and changing within the same plane.

Walmart does not have this problem because it embraces being a diluted brand. Being that Starbucks chooses growth, they will have to accept the fact that they will always have an overall product of lower quality than a real coffee house.

Honda must sell a billion Accords so that they could offer enthusiasts an S2000. Porsche had to dive into the SUV market in order to stay profitable enough to continue giving us 911s. But these extensions still tied back to the brand philosophy, whereas CDs and sausage muffins do not."
- Alvin Diec
"Alvin, to the contrary, Walmart seems to be incredibly focused. Focused on the lowest prices for everything. You obviously disagree. How are they unfocused?"
- Craig Johnson
"Not disagreeing, Walmart is definitely focused. I may have worded it wrong -- they embrace being a brand that offers a diluted product at the lowest price -- and are deadly focused in doing so. This model lends itself to being expandable without losing integrity, since it doesn't pretend to have any to begin with.

You can't have it both ways -- and that's Starbucks' problem. It wants to be "U2 circa 2009" while trying to convince the customer that they are "U2 circa 1983."

Just making an observation about the constant chase for growth (as is necessary for a public company) and how it affects one's brand. Having to first and foremost please shareholders, your product will suffer. It will get diluted.

There's something to be said for sacrificing growth for the sake of staying true to your philosophy."
- Alvin Diec
"Gotcha. I agree with you, Alvin."
- Craig Johnson
"More thoughts from Schultz this morning on their brand's stumble...

http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2009/11/13/Starbucks-CEO-Sends-McCafe-A-Venti-Thank-You.aspx"
- Dustin
"Social comments and analytics for this post...

This post was mentioned on Twitter by matchsticblake: How eggs sandwiches killed Starbucks, New matchblog: http://matchstic.com/blog/?p=3964..."
- uberVU - social comments
"[...] more, read the recent NY Times article cited here & my previous posting Focus, In Memoriam Back to Blog Share This Posted by: Dustin Britt on January 29th, [...]"
- Schultz’s Return to Focus & Profit « Matchstic Blog

Leave A Comment