Starbucks closure?
http://adage.com/article?article_id=125458
The world of Marketing has come a long way. It is no wonder that brands need to come up with pretty impressive campaigns to really get at consumers. Often times, this means creating a plan that's out of left field... maybe even controversial. It is no wonder Starbucks went to extreme lengths last week when it initiated a 3-hour closure of 7100 stores last Tuesday night. I personally think it is brilliant. There is so much going on in the media these days and it is really hard to cause a stir. Pulling a stunt such as Starbucks' is a guaranteed way to receive major media coverage. The reason behind the closing is linked to some sort of "barista training." Starbucks wanted to prove its dedication to improving product and customer experience, but inadvertently (definitely not...) created enough PR to truly spread the message.
Through my experience with marketing thus far, I am definitely seeing the challenges that exist in this field. There are so many messages being thrown in consumers' faces and it is important to develop a strategy that can break through the clutter. Not only do these marketing methods need to stand out, but they need to carefully walk the line between effective and over-the-top. There are instances where PR stunts get a bit out of hand, perhaps even dangerous. Recall the incident in Boston last January when a guerrilla marketing campaign of strategically placed blinking characters for the Aquateen Hunger Force movie were mistakenly identified as explosive devices. Two major bridges were shut down along, costing Homeland Security close to a million dollars. The definition of marketing gone very wrong.
Some marketing analysts believe that Starbucks 3-hour shut-down could have been horribly wrong as well. By closing, they are driving the customers right into the competitors hands... aka the opposite of what a marketing campaign aims to accomplish. However, I believe that Starbucks maintains a strong enough brand for them to pull off the closure in order to reap the benefits of media coverage and the uproar of Starbucks withdrawl.
posted by Lauren @ 8:02 PM
7 Comments
7 Comments:
A small note that I believe I read was that competitive coffee shops (Dunkin Donuts?) offered discounted coffee during the time period Starbucks was closed. Pretty interesting that competitors made a business decision in direct response to Starbucks's activities. Not a bad idea either.
The decision to close down all 7100 Starbucks' coffee shops for "barista-training" would probably have been more effective as a marketing strategy if they had opened back the next day with something equally (if not more) bold. Not only did they lose a lot of business by doing that, but it was also quite a let down for a lot of people i know, because their customer service did not seem very different from before.
I'm not really seeing the benefit of the Starbucks closure. I don't see how closing to train baristas is a positive way to promote the company because isn't their job in the first place to hire and train an efficient and friendly staff? I think that by closing the store you are showing customers that you have failed to do that task and have to take time out of their Starbucks experience as consumers. Also, I agree with the Dunkin Donuts post! It was a smart move for competitors to have special deals at the same time to steal some of Starbucks customers.
There is no question in my mind that the three-hour scheduled closure was purely a P.R. move. Starbucks has caught a lot of heat in the past year for failure to upgrade the store's trademark entity, the "in-store experience." Starbuck's built its brand name on the the unique Italian coffee shop atmosphere that it introduced to the U.S. But now, after years of rapid expansion, the mega-chain may be becoming too big for its own britches.
Its no wonder Starbuck's want the public to note that they are doing all in their power to maintain and improve their in-store "ambiance." However, at over 7000 stores, it seems that the Starbuck's brand is facing major concerns as a direct result of over-expansion.
I agree with Bethany...I don't think this is really helpful for Starbucks. It's obviously a PR move...they needed to train all of their baristas at the same time? But hey, if that's what they want to do. Like Bryan said, they're just driving their customers into the hands of cheaper, equally delicious coffee.
I did not even know about this stunt pulled by Starbucks. I almost think that it makes Starbucks look like a company that is, and for lack of a better term, stuck up. Its almost as if they are saying that they are so successful they do not need our money and know we will come back, which is true. People will be faithful to their favorite coffee retailer. It did give press to the company, and press though maybe negative or positive it press. And Starbucks does not even need ads to make it successful, so this is an interesting twist to do. I agreed though that it did turn the consumers over to the other competitors, obviously making the company loose money. If anything I would have just been annoyed by the closure. All in all im not sure if it was a smart move for starbucks?
I agree with the general sediment in the posts. While I’m sure they had some reasons for doing this, obviously, or they wouldn’t have I don’t see how it could have been a smart decision. Perhaps if people had come into the store the next day and some radical change had taken place, it would have been good. But if customers were merely inconvenienced with no pay I don’t understand how that would be a good thing. I also totally agree with the part that talked about them driving customers into their competitors hands and possibly losing some for good in the process.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home