My Photo

Solving Starbucks Problems

SUBSCRIBE OPTIONS

Archives



  • SEARCH the Brand Autopsy archive:

Blogroll


Popular Posts

« October 2007 | Main | December 2007 »

November 30, 2007

Visual Vampires

Did you see the Brandweek story about Visual Vampires?

Visual vampires are images shown in advertising that divert attention away from the advertised product. Think … Wendy’s Red WigRobert Goulet/Emerald NutsParis Hilton/Carl's Jr.. (Think 100% Creationist WOM where companies engage in outrageously gimmicky attention-grabbing antics to capture our attention.)

The study Brandweek cites is from The PreTesting Company. Here’s further explanation:

Wendy’s red wig-clad ads are hard to miss. However, new research shows that the characters in pony-tailed toupees greatly overshadow the products featured in the same ads.

“It is a visual vampire. There is high engagement, but when they show the food it drops like a rock,” said Lee Weinblatt, CEO of PreTesting, Tenafly, N.J.

The majority (68%) of viewers of the Wendy’s ad were riveted when the wig was on screen, but when hamburgers were shown it fell to 24%. The baseline for fast food commercials is 50% as consumers expect to be entertained. Other TV ads dominated by visual vampires: Subway (Jon Lovitz), Chrysler (Dr. Z) and Burger King (Coq Roq).” READ MORE

Hmm ... so is there a marketing garlic we can use to ward off these Visual Vampires? Could be. It's something I refer to as the WHAT YOU DO vs. WHAT YOU DID test.

When people talk about your brand, do they talk about the products/serves the company does or do they talk about the advertising it did? If people are talking about the products/services you do, then you've successful repelled the Visual Vampire. However, if all people can talk about is the offbeat creativity in your ads, then the Visual Vampire has probably been allowed to run amock.

For example, I know no one talking about the food Wendy's does. Instead, its all about the edgy red wig advertising the company did. Same goes for the Emerald Nuts spots we saw at the Super Bowl this year. No one was talking about how great Emerald Nuts taste, they were only talking about how creepy it was to have Robert Goulet acting a fool in the spot.

As a marketer, I much prefer people talking about what a company does and not what it did. Reckon the only way to truly repel Visual Vampires is to follow the Sethology of spending marketing dollars to make products/services more remarkable and not to make kookier commercials.

November 29, 2007

THREE READS | November 29

ONE | Ad Agency as “Brand Navigator”
Kevin Roberts (of Saatchi & Saatchi Lovemarks notoriety) is grasping with managing a behemoth advertising agency against nimble, social media-adept boutique agencies.

According BusinessWeek
, Roberts has come to believe following the Lovemarks ethos isn’t enough for businesses to create loyalty beyond reason with their brands. Roberts contends businesses “… are desperate for an uber-consultant—a brand navigator” who “… devises an overall message, then subcontracts the work to the relevant people--interactive shops, direct marketers, and so on.”

Hmm … isn’t this just outsourcing the marketing function? The role of a Brand Navigator sounds to me a lot like the role of a company’s Marketing leader. >>READ MORE


TWO | Print is Dead
Joe Wikert blogged about it. Because I trust Joe’s views, I bought it (and I’m digging it). Joe Gomez’s PRINT IS DEAD is a very provocative book about the impending digital change that will wreck havoc in the traditional publishing world. There is nothing new in Joe’s thesis. What’s new is how Joe explains the real reason why we’ve formed emotional connections with the printed page. Joe writes,
In the end, we may be in love with books, but it’s words that have truly won our hearts. It’s words that whisper into our ear and transform us, that make us believe in other worlds or new emotions we didn’t know existed; it’s words that keep us company in those planes, on subway trains, or our comfy couches. It is words, not books, paper, papyrus, or vellum pages that transform our lives.

Preach on Mr. Gomez. Preach on. >>READ MORE


THREE | Confessions of a Starbucks Barista
The curious marketer inside of Alex Frankel caused him to go undercover and spend time working as a front-line employee with admired brands like UPS, Starbucks, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Apple store, and the Gap. He shares his thoughts about the branding of company culture in "PUNCHING IN: The Unauthorized Adventures of a Front-Line Employee." It’s an interesting read.

Sample a bite-size chunk of his book with an excerpt that appeared in the Brown Alumni Magazine. This excerpt shares Frankel’s impressions of Starbucks while spending time as a Barista there slinging drinks. Early in his stint, Frankel became cynical about the Starbucks “heavy-handed culture-building” employee training approach. >>READ MORE

November 28, 2007

Solving Starbucks Problems

As a leading authority on customer evangelism and word-of-mouth marketing, Jackie Huba has added her voice to the discussion about the problems Starbucks is facing. She highlights how Starbucks losing its authenticity has driven the company from using customers as its primary advertising vehicle, to using national television commercials as an advertising vehicle.

Back in March, Paul Williams and I dissected many of these authenticity issues Starbucks faces in a series of back-n-forth blog posts. Together, Paul and I have a combined 19-years of marketing experience with Starbucks and we tapped into that experience to talk strategies and tactics Starbucks could follow to reclaim its authenticity.

At the time, we were responding to Howard Schultz’s leaked internal memo where he admitted that Starbucks has “… had to make a series of decisions that, in retrospect, have lead to the watering down of the Starbucks experience, and, some might call the commoditization of our [Starbucks] brand.

Our series of posts have been given new relevance since Starbucks has decided to use national television advertising to solve some of its business problems. Re-read, or read for the first time, the laundry list of strategies and tactics Paul and I believe Starbucks could implement to become the company it once was.


One_post_intro

We began by addressing the LOSS OF COFFEE THEATRE issue:
Paul analyzed the switchover from the La Marzocco espresso machine to the Verisimo automatic machine and offered up tactical ideas Starbucks can use to course-correct itself back to espresso authenticity. I riffed off Paul’s post and added the idea Starbucks needs to give permission to store partners to showcase their flair and personality while on the bar in order bring some of the coffee theatre back.
Next on our list was the LOSS OF COFFEE AROMA issue:
I explain in detail how “operational efficiencies” (not Flavorlock packaging) have led to Starbucks stores no longer smelling of coffee. I offer the quick-fix solution of finding ways to grind coffee in-store again. Paul disagrees with my exoneration of Flavorlock packaging and he smartly offers up the idea of implementing an “Aroma First” rule. This “Aroma First” rule would have Starbucks making in-store decisions based upon how any proposed activity would impact the aroma of coffee inside a Starbucks.
We also addressed the LOSS OF STORE SOUL issue:
Paul breaks down what it means to be a Mom & Pop shop and gives specific ideas on how Starbucks store design should stop being all things to all people at all its stores. I offer up thoughts on how Starbucks should give more control to its stores to run store-specific marketing programs and post store-specific marketing signage.
We touched upon the LOSS OF MERCHANDISE focus:
I explain how Bearista Bears and Finger Puppets sell very well, but it a great cost to the brand. As a solution, I propose Starbucks ask itself two questions to ensure its merchandise focus: (#1) Does the product link directly to coffee? If yes, sell it. If no, don’t. (#2) Does the quality of this product match the high-quality of Starbucks coffee. If yes, sell it. If no, don’t. Paul adds-on and modifies my two questions by asking if the merchandise links directly to either the preparation, consumption, and/or enjoyment of coffee. He closes his thoughts by expressing just because Starbucks can sell music, DVDs, and plush toys doesn’t mean they should.
We close by addressing the LOSS OF IDENTITY issue:
Paul likens Starbucks returning to its core to restoring antique furniture to its core, original finish. He also brilliantly points out Starbucks needs LESS INNOVATION and MORE EXPLORATION. Starbucks didn’t invent coffee, it explored the world of coffee and brought interesting flavors to its customers. Paul says Starbucks should concern itself with digging deeper into the world of coffee and uncover exotic coffee concoctions and share them. I take the IDENTITY conversation in a different direction and explain how Starbucks needs to standup to the bullies working on Wall Street by pruning all of its unhealthy growth in order to rejuvenate its soul and refertilize its reason for existing.

For even more ideas on how Starbucks can solve its business problems, read what myself and a cadre of other marketing-minded folks have to say in the WHAT MUST STARBUCKS DO? manifesto published online by ChangeThis in April of 2007.

November 26, 2007

Cyber Monday needs a new name

Does anyone else cringe when they hear someone say Cyber Monday? We are hearing "Cyber Monday" tossed around a lot because online shopping traffic spikes today with office workers using their Internet connections at work to whittle down their Holiday shopping lists.

But the name Cyber Monday feels so 1996 to me. Cyber Monday was hip lexicon in the online world eons ago—back when HotBot and Lycos were hip. But HotBot and Lycos have long lost their naming relevance, shouldn't Cyber Monday?

Let's tap into our collective wisdom and come up with a better, more appropriate, and more up-to-date name to signify the first workday online buying opportunity of the Holiday shopping season.

Share your best name(s) to replace the bygone era "Cyber Monday" term in the comments section.


UPDATED: Kenyatta nails it. He suggests... Dot-Com Day. Perfect! So can we all agree to start calling "Cyber Monday" by the new name of Dot-Com Day? (I will.)

November 25, 2007

Dissecting the 2008 Presidential Logos

In 2004, the New York Times dissected the Bush/Cheney and Kerry/Edwards presidential logos.

With the 2008 Presidential Race heating up, the New York Times has dissected the campaign logos of the front-running candidates. Click the image below for a sampling of the dissection. If the image does not show-up big and clear enough on your screen, consider opening up this PDF file. Or, go directly to the source at the NY Times.

Candidate_logos_dissection

Yeah, I know ... this is hard to read on the screen. This PDF version is bigger and easier to read. And the NY Times has a slide show of the entire Ward Sutton illustration.

November 21, 2007

The Business Case for Curing ALS

Approximately 30,000 people worldwide suffer from ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis), better known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. Each year, about 6,000 people are diagnosed with ALS. Once diagnosed, almost 50% of all ALS sufferers die within two-years and within five-years, nearly every ALS sufferer dies. There is no cure for ALS.

ALS is a neurological disease where motor neurons from the brain stop reaching one’s voluntary and involuntary muscles. When muscles no longer receive neurons, muscles cease to move and the sufferer becomes paralyzed. ALS sufferers become trapped inside a body that doesn’t respond. Eventually, ALS patients lose the ability of their involuntary muscles, namely the ability to breathe, and subsequently patients lose their life.

Augie Nieto is on a quest to find a cure for this devastating and nearly hopeless disease. As the co-founder of Life Fitness Inc., Augie helped to popularize the fitness industry. Much of the equipment you see in your local health club is from the company Augie co-founded.

For most of his adult life, Augie has embodied living a healthy, active life. But in an ironic twist of fate, Augie was diagnosed with ALS in March of 2005. At first, he wallowed in pity and attempted suicide. Then, he resolved to use his business skills to find a cure for ALS.

However, the business case for finding a cure to ALS is difficult to make. Pharmaceutical companies will invest billions of dollars every year on research to find cures for diseases. Drug companies invest these billions because they seek to get a significant return on their investment by providing medicines that the masses will buy to cure them of a disease.

Since only 6,000 new cases of ALS are diagnosed yearly and at any given time, only 30,000 people worldwide live with ALS, a very small market exists for the drug companies to earn money from a drug that cures ALS. In other words, ALS is not a profitable disease for pharmaceutical companies.

Along his quest to find a cure for ALS, Augie met a kindred spirit in Sean Scott. Sean is a television commercial director by trade but an ALS researcher by passion.

The ALS disease has profoundly impacted Seans’s life. His mother died from the disease and so have five of Sean’s grandmother’s eight children. Sean is genetically predisposed to ALS—which means he runs a much higher risk of being inflicted with the deadly disease. Because of this, Sean has dedicated his life to learning as much about ALS as possible. Despite having no medical research training, Sean read every neurological textbook he could find and became expert in ALS research. Sean also became frustrated at how non-collaborative all the ALS research findings were.

When Sean and Augie met, a friendship and life-long partnerhsip developed. They both shared the frustration of how ALS research suffered from a silo mentality where academics and researchers, being protective of their data, rarely shared their findings with one another. They also shared the belief that researchers were behaving too much like academics and not enough like healers.

Together, these two are setting forth to change the research process for finding a cure to ALS.

Sean Scott is today the president of the ALS Therapy Development Institute (ALSTDI). The ALSTDI is involved in groundbreaking ALS research, which is openly shared and not privately-kept.

And as the ALS disease marches on rendering more of Augie’s body unresponsive, he continues to work on making the business case for why and how it is profitable for drug companies to find a medical cure for ALS. Through his Augie’s Quest Foundation, he has raised millions of dollars for research into studying the disease in order to find a cure.

You can learn more about Augie’s life and his quest to find a cure for ALS in the just-published book, AUGIE’S QUEST: One Man’s Journey from Success to Significance.

I share this story with you as Thanksgiving 2007 approaches because my mother, Glenna Moore, was born this Thanksgiving day in 1936. Unfortunately, she will not be with her family to celebrate all we are thankful for. Glenna passed away as a result of the ALS disease on July 27, 2007.

I am thankful for everything my Mother taught me and gave me. She will be missed this Thanksgiving.

November 20, 2007

Santa's Awful Marketing Pick-Up Move

Skyon, the marketing pick-up artist we love to hate, sent me this cartoon ditty with a little note that read, "Looks like Santa needs to learn the proper Marketing Courtship Process."

Santa_pickup_noartist


November 18, 2007

Pass the Cheer Starbucks TV Ad

UPDATED [Nov. 27]: Starbucks has posted all three of their Holiday television commercials online. You can view them here.

The "Bear Hug" and "Window Washer" spots continue the good Samaritan "Pass the Cheer" angle with the major difference being the focus on the Starbucks Red Cup. The Red Cup is so much more recognizable as being Starbuckian than is the red Christmas Blend whole bean bag (seen in the Ski Lift ad).

As a marketer, I would like the closing shot on these two spots to linger a little longer. Both of these new commercials close with the Red Cup holiday beverage focus. However, the closing payoff shot feels rushed. Not enough time for us viewers to read, understand, or connect with the copy on the draped banner. They could have easily shaved off a second or two in the build-up and added it to the closing payoff shot for more effectiveness. Have a look for yourself. Click below...

Sbux_spots2and3_2


>> original post <<
Lots of c-h-a-t-t-e-r about the television spots Starbucks is running. I haven't seen them on the tele, but Starbucks has posted one spot online.

Click below to watch the commercial....

Starbucks_passthecheer_screenshots

Hmm ... okay. Starbucks waited 36-years for this? It's nice. It's benign. It's subtle. Can't see how this spot will drive in new customers, nor drive current customers to come in more often during the Holidays. (And yeah, I know this is just one component to the overall Starbucks Holiday promotion.)

What's your take? Does this television ad make you feel any different about Starbucks? Does it make you want to visit a Starbucks and buy some Christmas Blend?


UPDATE:

In the comments section, Scott questions how this TV spot syncs up with Starbucks brand identity.

Great point. The missing ingredient of Starbucks first national television commercial is brand identity. This spot feels more appropriate for Caribou Coffee than it does Starbucks. (For those unaware, Caribou Coffee is the second largest coffee retailer in the US. According to Wikipedia, Caribou has over 460 locations in 18 states.)

Caribou's brand identity is wrapped around the cozy ski lodge concept as well as the leaping deer in its logo. The in-store décor of a Caribou Coffee location is reminiscent of a ski lodge, complete with exposed weathered wood and comfy chairs around a fireplace. (Photos here, here, and here.)

The leaping deer, which easily passes for a reindeer during the Holidays, is as iconic to Caribou as the Siren is to Starbucks.

Additionally, Caribou uses a pastel aqua-blue color as part of its brand identity.

So upon further review, this commercial from Starbucks works better for Caribou Coffee than it does for Starbucks. Ski scenes are more associated with Caribou than Starbucks. A deer is more linked to the Caribou brand than the Starbucks brand. Caribou’s color scheme has always been drenched in an aqua-blue color, while Starbucks color scheme hasn’t.

Upon even further review, this Starbucks commercial fails the “Logo Test.” If we were to swap out the Starbucks Christmas Blend bag at the end of the spot and replace it with Caribou’s Reindeer Blend, the commercial would still work just fine. Anytime you can swap out your logo for a competitor’s logo in any piece of marketing collateral and it looks fine, you have a problem.

So ... Starbucks, with its first national television commercial, has made a great ad for Caribou Coffee.

November 16, 2007

Starbucks Television Advertising

Sbux_tv_2

UPDATE: Click here to watch one of the Starbucks Holiday commercials.

What?
On a conference call with Wall Street analysts, Starbucks Coffee revealed fewer customers are visiting its stores and that year-over-year sales are stagnant. The company reported a 1.0% drop in customer traffic as compared to the same period last year and despite two price increases, same store sales increased only 4.0% from the year prior.

In response, Starbucks announced a three-point plan to reverse their sluggish financial numbers. First, the company will attempt to sharpen its store-level operations to better deliver the “Starbucks Experience” customers have come to expect. Second, the company will focus on introducing new beverages that are more innovative and more appealing to customers. Third, Starbucks will launch a national television advertising campaign in hopes of driving new customers into its stores as well as getting current customers to visit more often.


So What?
Since being a publicly traded company, Starbucks has never experienced a reduction in customer visits. Remarkably, they have always had more customers visiting its stores … until now. This is uncharted territory for Starbucks. And Starbucks is concerned.

Additionally, for nearly a decade, year-over-year sales at Starbucks have been very strong—anywhere from 7.0% to 13.0%. So the current trend where comp sales are stagnate in the low single-digits is quite alarming for Starbucks.

For many companies, the answer to the question of, “Sales are down and customer counts are falling, what should we do?” is to spend marketing dollars on creating a television-heavy advertising campaign. That hasn’t been the answer at Starbucks.

Starbucks has always followed the unconventional strategy of using its in-store experience as its main marketing tool. Everything about the Starbucks experience marketed the Starbucks business: the coffee in the iconic white logo cup, the personal interaction between a customer and a Starbucks barista, the in-store decor, the music playing overhead, the welcoming smell of the coffee, and the feeling customers had during their Starbucks “moment.”

As noted in the conference call, Starbucks will continue down the unconventional path of spending marketing dollars to improve the customer’s in-store experience through better store operations and more appealing beverages.

But now, the company has also decided to follow the more conventional path to arresting declining sales through launching a television advertising campaign. According to Ad Age, we can expect to see three Holiday-focused animated 30-second spots running on select cable channels and network television channels.

This dramatic change in marketing strategy goes to show us how seriously the company is taking the soft comp sales and declining transaction comps. Starbucks is willing to risk its go-to-market strategy by spending significant monies on television ads to lure customers during the Holiday season.

To this marketer, it’s a little foolish to spend advertising dollars on television during the Holiday season without going all-out. I doubt Starbucks is putting mega-millions behind this television push. With so many retailers spending mega-millions on television advertising during the Holiday shopping season, the limited advertising spend from Starbucks is sure to get lost in all the ad clutter. Plus, I get the feeling these commercials will be go hard on pushing the relevance of the Starbucks brand during the Holidays and go very soft on selling specific products.

A smarter spend for Starbucks would be to go all-out during the Spring/Summer months and use television advertising to promote their promotion-friendly Frappuccino blended beverages. Starbucks has always treated their Frappuccino drinks as being more promotional than their other coffee drinks. For years, Starbucks has done regional radio, billboard, and print advertising to support their Frappuccino portfolio. They’ve come to believe this advertising push positively impacts sales and drives in new customers.

So why doesn’t Starbucks wait until the Spring/Summer months to go all-out with national television advertising? With sales already sluggish and customer traffic trending downward, the company doesn’t want to get too far behind their FY’08 sales goals. Keep in mind, Starbucks will generate around 25% of its 2008 sales during the six-weeks of Holiday. If the company falls behind early in hitting sales targets, 2008 could be a very rough year.

I believe this national television advertising push is a sign Starbucks is desperate to drive sales. Desperate enough to turn its back on the marketing strategy that has made Starbucks what it is today.


What Now?
We all get to sit back, watch the television commercials, and watch to see what impact this new marketing direction has on the Starbucks business and the Starbucks brand.
Want More?
Consider reading the What Must Starbucks Do? Manifesto. In April, I, along with a handful of other Starbucks customers, published a manifesto loaded with ideas on what Starbucks must do to reclaim its uniqueness, to better connect with customers, and to become the coffee company it once was. Read it again. Or, read it for the first time. >> MORE <<

If your appetite for mulling over Starbucks strategies is insatiable, you should review the series of posts Paul Williams and I did earlier this year. In this series of back-and-forth posts, we talked strategies, tactics, and shared some insider knowledge based upon our combined 19-years of marketing experience at Starbucks. Start here and work your way backward. Or, start here and work your way forward.

And of course, Jim Romenesko's Starbucks Gossip blog is all over this.

November 14, 2007

Whole Foods “Markets as Non-Conversation”

What?
Whole Foods Market has barred executive-titled employees, directors on its board, global vice presidents, regional presidents, and regional vice presidents from participating in any online conversation not sponsored by the company. This change in company policy is the direct result of kinky business behavior from its CEO, John Mackey.

In July, Mackey was outed by the FCC for having posted over 1,300 messages from 1999 to mid-2006 on the Yahoo! Financial boards. In these postings, Mackey hid behind an alias (“rahodeb”) and trumpeted Whole Foods while trashing Wild Oats. About eight-months after rahodeb’s last posting on Yahoo!, Whole Foods initiated a merger with Wild Oats.


So What?
It is sad to hear a company is unable to trust its executives to be ethical, considerate, and appropriate when conversing online. It’s even more sad for Whole Foods to enforce such a strident ruling given it was founded upon core Libertarian beliefs of maximum freedom and minimum governance.

The Whole Foods business operates under the belief stores should have the freedom to meet the needs of its unique customers and team members. The only governing rule stores must dogmatically adhere to is all food sold at Whole Foods Market must be free from artificial preservatives, colors, flavors, sweeteners, and hydrogenated oils. The company has a Quality Standards Policy, which lists all unacceptable food ingredients. Products containing ingredients on this list are not allowed to be sold at Whole Foods stores.

Here’s where the company’s Libertarian ways truly come to life ... individual stores have the autonomy to stock whatever products they desire so long as the ingredients in the products adhere to these quality standards. The Whole Foods executive team trusts its stores to qualify and disqualify the products they sale.

Yet, Whole Foods is unable to trust its executives to qualify and disqualify how they can participate in online conversations about the company they work for. Interesting. Seems to me, the Libertarian answer to all of this is to develop a Blogging Standards Policy for every employee to follow. There are examples galore of corporate blogging guidelines for Whole Foods to use as a starting point.


What Now?
As a former marketer at Whole Foods, I find the corporate mandate that execs cannot participate in online conversations disheartening. It’s a knee-jerk, short-sided, and regrettable decision.

However, I hope this spurs more Whole Foods Market team members (company term for “employees”) to blog on a company website blog or on a blog they create outside of the company. At the least, every Whole Foods Market location should have a company blog on the Whole Foods Website. And at the very, very least … Whole Foods should have a rich internal blog or some other internal online forum where team members can learn from one another and from those higher-up execs who have been barred from such online conversations outside of the company’s blog moat.

Sure, the company has an informative and snazzy cooking video blog called SECRET INGREDIENT as well a handful of podcasts and blogs. But there is so much more opportunity for Whole Foods Market to share their unique point-of-view on food and the natural food difference.

Here’s hoping enthusiastic Whole Foods Market team members start their own blogs and share their passions for changing the way the world eats, shops, and enjoys food.

November 13, 2007

Chewy Marketing Quote

Peterdruckermarketingquote_2

November 12, 2007

Dim Bulb Sheds Light on Zune

Jonathan from the Dim Bulb blog has a super-tasty riff on the marketing of Microsoft's Zune. Read the intro and then read his full riff...

"People are too busy enjoying their Apple iPods to listen to Zune's marketing, so what is Microsoft going to do?

Spend more money on ads, of course!

It has already wasted millions on state-of-the-art web design, artsy films, and beautiful Peter Max-ish advertising. The branding conceit was that Zune was all about sharing music, and had some built-in whatchamacallit to beam songs to other Zune devices.

Unfortunately, people already share music on their iPods: two people each grab an earbud and, voila, you've got sharing. Hand the player to a friend. Play songs on a computer. Zune offered to fix a problem that nobody had." >> READ MORE <<

Who got Starbucked?


Starbucked_spine

Taylor Clark’s STARBUCKED: A Double Tall Tale of Caffeine, Commerce, and Culture is receiving lots of positive ink. The Wall Street Journal loved it. As did the San Francisco Chronicle. It’s being positioned loftily as a “Part Fast Food Nation, part Bobos in Paradise” treatise on coffee and capitalism.

Taylor’s book is interesting reading but not necessarily mandatory reading for business folk and cultural studies folk. He traces the Starbucks story well from its inception in 1971 to its impact in 2007. However, it lacks punch.

(Keep in mind, I’m very close to this story having spent my formative marketing years working at Starbucks Coffee as well as written a book about what I think makes Starbucks a successful business.)

In expected alt-weekly journalism fashion, Taylor, a former writer with Portland’s Willamette Week alt-weekly, runs down the same old story of Starbucks opportunistic and capitalist ways.

Yes, Starbucks is hyper-competitive. Yes, Starbucks seeks prime real estate locations. Yes, Starbucks could do more to support coffee farmers. Yes, Starbucks added sizzle to the experience of drinking coffee. Yes, the familiarity of Starbucks brings about opinions of homogenization. Yes, Starbucks charges an ungodly premium for its coffee drinks. Yes, Starbucks has a strong corporate culture ethos. That we know.

While I found much of Taylor’s book to cover well-trodden territory, he managed to talk with lots of former Starbucks executive heavies. And the quotes these ex-Starbucks higher-ups shared with Taylor are at times fascinating. I wasn’t expecting to read such sulliable and ego-laden quotes. Which leaves me wondering if these past Starbucks execs weren’t Starbucked.

Taylor caught Howard Behar, former big-time Starbucks exec and current Starbucks board member, with some choice comments When asked about Howard Schultz’s vision of selling espresso beverages back when relatively few people could pronounce it, much less enjoy the taste of it, Behar is quoted as saying, “Howard will always say he knew this would work, but he’s full of shit. We didn’t know how it would turn out.” (p. 53)

When the topic of Tom O’Keefe, founder of regional coffee competitor Tully’s, comes up, Behar is quoted as blurting out an emphatic, “Fuck him.”(p. 128) And when Behar talks about critics referring to the taste of Starbucks coffee as burnt, he’s quoted as saying, “What used to piss me off was when they’d say ‘Charbucks.’ That’s like walking into a gallery and saying, ‘Your art is shitty.’(p. 70)

Scott Bedbury, former Starbucks Marketing VP, provided Taylor with some choice fodder as well. In talking about the role quality espresso drinks play at Starbucks, Bedbury is quoted as saying, “To be honest, you could train a monkey to pull a double-shot. It’s just not that hard.(p.88)

Engle Saez, another former Starbucks Marketing VP, shared some candid comments about Starbucks true competitive advantage. Taylor quotes Saez as saying, “Starbucks doesn’t have a lockdown patent on the environment; it doesn’t have a lockdown patent on the experience; and it doesn’t have a lockdown patent on the bean or the roast. All of those things can be duplicated. So what it comes down to is the dominance of real estate. That’s the one area where no one can out muscle Starbucks.(p. 115)

You’ll have to read the book to take in more choice candid comments from past Starbucks players. Starbucks insiders will get a kick outta how Taylor portrays former Starbucks Real Estate head Arthur Rubinfeld. (Oh my.)

Taylor and I actually spoke some months ago when he was in the process of writing STARBUCKED. I do not recall much about the conversation we had except the writer seemed young and guarded about the angle he was taking with the book. The quotes Taylor includes in the book from me are benign. Then again, I’ve already shared lots of pointed comments about Starbucks on this blog and Taylor had many former executive-level Starbucks people eager to riff about the company they once worked for.

Kudos to Taylor Clark for getting ex-Starbucks folks to open up and share some off-brand and at times, acrimonious remarks. I’m sure some of these folks will not be pleased with how they are portrayed.

As far as STARBUCKED being a book business enthusiasts would find worthwhile, I don’t think so. Just not enough business knowledge nuggets for us business wonks to learn from. However, the cultural studies crowd might find this book somewhat worthwhile … just not near as worthwhile as Fast Food Nation or Bobos in Paradise.

November 10, 2007

UNMARKETABLE | Anne Elizabeth Moore

Unmarketable_2
"Click me," said the jpeg.

November 07, 2007

The Fiskateers Movement

For over a year, Brains on Fire has been helping Fiskars, the scissors company, design a brand ambassador program called the Fiskateers. Last weekend I crashed their Fiskateers Roundup in San Antonio and witnessed the movement firsthand. Ladies sporting orange cowboy hats were all over the hotel and every one of these gals was toting a rolling scrapbook treasure chest of Fiskars goodies.

Geno, Spike, Carrie, and Virginia of Brains on Fire worked with Suzanne from Fiskars to put on one helluva weekend full of camaraderie, crafting, and cavorting.

In every session, Fiskateers shared their love for how scrapbooking tells the story of their lives. But more than that, these Fiskars evangelists expressed their love and appreciation for how Fiskars products help them tell better stories. It was amazing to hear how much these people ADORE Fiskars.

This program has not only profoundly impacted Fiskars, it has also profoundly impacted the marketing agency that designed the Fiskateers brand ambassador program.

On the Brains on Fire blog, Virginia Miracle talks about how she was faced with breaking the “fourth wall” of marketing during the Fiskateers Roundup. She writes,

“Breaking this fourth wall is both scary & exciting because we are making the rules as we go along. For example: do I put my Fiskateer number on my nametag or put Brains on Fire? (I erred on the side of over-disclosure and put both.) Do I wear a bright orange cowboy hat like the Nifty Fifty or stand back and take photos of the people wearing them? As a community manager and Fiskars evangelist in my off-time, I am as much as part of this program as I am trying to shape and support it.”

“I am as much as part of this program as I am trying to shape and support it.” Whoa! That’s a powerful line. And that’s a true partnership between client and agency.

Lots of agencies talk about forging partnerships with their clients. Most times that talk rings hallow. Not with Brains on Fire. As evidence by their work with Fiskars, they’ve designed a movement so powerful that it has moved Brains on Fire to become part of the movement. That is, to become genuine Fiskars brand ambassadors.

November 06, 2007

Buckley’s: The Good Taste of Bad Taste

Buckleyscoughmixture

We all know cough syrup isn’t the best-tasting medicine. That’s why medicine companies have been introducing better-tasting concoctions loaded with sugar to help the medicine go down.

Not Buckley’s.

For years Buckley’s Cough Mixture, available in Canada since 1919, has been highlighting the fact their cough syrup tastes horrible, but it works. Print headlines in the past have been: ** People swear by it. And at it. ** Made with oil of Pine needles. What did you expect it to taste like? ** Your cough won't know what hit it, neither will you. **

Buckley’s is finally entering the US market and they aren’t backing down from their “tastes awful” positioning. TV spots include faux taste tests with blindfolded consumers asking them to tell the taste difference between Buckley’s vs. Used Mouthwash, Buckley’s vs. Trash Bag Leakage, Buckley’s vs. Public Restroom Puddle. Seriously. Click on the above links to watch the short commercials.

Here’s a snippet from one of Buckley’s radio spots:

"If you are inquiring about your cough mixture tasting like expired milk, trash-bag leakage, a postpedicure foot bath, a state fair porta-potty, decomposing meat fat, monkey sweat, used denture soak, New Jersey, or hippie-festival runoff, please hang up. Your cough will be gone shortly."

Buckley’s is also into the Consumer-Generated Media game asking people to submit videos of their first sip of the malicious cough mixture with their Bad Taste Tour contest. Troll YouTube and you’ll also see videos of people trying Buckley’s for the first time.

I applaud Buckley’s for accentuating the hate with their cough syrup. The easier path would have been to reformulate the cough syrup to taste better so as not to turn off customers. But by turning off customers, Buckley’s turns them on. Kudos to Buckley’s.

And Kudos to the Wall Street Journal for the heads-up.

November 02, 2007

If Al Moore blogged ...

If my Dad blogged, he would share this. It's a comic from the Non Sequitur day calendar he keeps on his office desk. So instead of blogging it, he emailed it to me. And since this comic has a marketing bent to it, I'm blogging it.

(Thanks Pops.)

Nonsequitur_2

Another Chewy Management Quote

Earlier I shared a chewy management quote from John Teets, CEO at Viad. Today, we hear from Stanford Prof. Jeffrey Pfeffer ...

"A leader's job is to reduce uncertainty, not create it."
SOURCE: WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? (Jeffrey Pfeffer)

November 01, 2007

What Were They Thinking? (Jeffrey Pfeffer)

Long-time readers of this blog know I have an affinity for business books. Okay. Affinity is too loose a word. ADDICTION is more appropriate.

{Hi. I’m John Moore and I’m addicted to business books.}

Just because I’m addicted to business books doesn’t mean I enjoy every biz book I read. Too often I slog through lousy biz books hoping to mine a few knowledge nuggets. Unfortunately, most biz books fail to help me generate new ideas, nor do they give me a new perspective on a business topic. So when a business book comes along that delivers smart ideas and unique perspective, I get excited.

Jeffrey Pfeffer’s WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? – Unconventional Wisdom about Management has me excited. It’s a fast-paced book that’s laced with knowledge nuggets making me a smarter business thinker and doer.

Here are some of the knowledge nuggets Pfeffer shares that has this marketer thinking …


WHAT?: Get Smarter by Taking Small Risks

SO WHAT?: “Companies are a lot like children—none are born knowing all they need to know, and relatively few are born smart. Most acquire intelligence by learning basic tasks and skills, mastering them, and then moving on to learn more tasks.” (p. 32)

“Relatively few companies actually embrace the management practices that are required to help them get smarter (p. 33). Learning and innovation also require letting people make mistakes.” (p. 36)

“The irony is that even as companies want to become learning organizations, they don’t want to be places where people can learn new things—because that requires putting people in positions where they do tasks they don’t do very well.” (p. 36)

WHAT NOW?: “The principle is simple—learn and fail on a small scale. But that ethos requires accepting that novelty and innovation are invariably accompanied by setbacks and failures. And embracing such a way of operating requires letting people fail—maybe even encouraging them to fail.” (p. 37)


WHAT?: Working Longer Hours is a Fallacy

SO WHAT?: “Companies often make long hours sort of a loyalty test. Employees are expected to put their work and their employer first, and one way of demonstrating their commitment is by forgoing leisure and family.” (p. 69)

“Contrary to myth and much conventional wisdom, European companies can and do compete successfully in global product and service markets, even with vacation and workweek policies that put their U.S. competitors to shame.” (p. 71)

WHAT NOW?: “It’s time for the U.S. companies that have made late nights and short weekends a test of loyalty to come to terms with the myth that long hours and no vacations are good for the bottom line.” (p. 73)


WHAT?: We Overemphasize Strategy

SO WHAT?: “There I sat at yet another board meeting, listening to the chief executive drone on about sales strategy and product strategy as he pointed to slick slideware filled with analyses of potential markets and buzzwords about our competitive positioning in the design visualization software market.

Then it dawned on me—almost no one in the room, including the person talking, had actually visited a customer or, for that matter, even used the company’s product in their own work.” (p. 166)

WHAT NOW? “Instead of sitting in meetings and spending time preparing fancy PowerPoint presentations, develop your strategy adaptively, by using your company’s best thinking at the time, learning from experience, and then trying again, using what you have learned. Under almost all circumstances, fast learners are going to outperform even the most brilliant strategists who can’t adapt.” (p. 170)


Worthwhile stuff!

WHAT NOW? Well ... stop reading this and start reading Jeffrey Pfeffer’s WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?