A recent New York Times article, titled “Now at Starbucks: A Rebound” discusses CEO Howard D. Schultz’s move to transform Starbucks from a faceless multi-national into a more local and urban coffee shop, the kind he originally envisioned when he founded the company.
One of the first appearances of this strategy is the new Starbucks-owned shop called 15th avenue Coffee and Tea in Seattle. The NY Times described the scene as follows:
“Young people wearing hoodies and chunky glasses are sipping microbrew beers and espressos, nibbling on cheese and baguettes made at a local bakery and listening to a guitarist strum and sing.”
Now, Starbucks hasn’t been the worst when it comes to blending into local urban environments, but there was still no mistaking that it was a corporate behemoth. The majority of their outposts were, in fact, corporate replicas. So this new strategy seems like a clever move in the right direction.
The issue with this new strategy, however, is that people feel like they’re being tricked:
“But Sylvia Lee, a doctor who lives in the neighborhood, said she was excited when she saw the shop was opening — until she discovered it was owned by Starbucks. “No one wants to be the duped customers won over,” she said.”
Is it really trickery? Is it simply a corporate giant masquerading as a local mom-and-pop shop? Or, is it actually a desirable corporate evolution, one that’s now tapping into our love for perceived customization?
I recently read an interesting article that talked about how industrial production runs in contrast to our desire for individuality; and so companies simply offer the allusion of customization by offering different colours (in the case of an iPod) or different body shells (in the case of new car models).
Now let’s be honest, there are many things to like about chains, such as product consistency, triple AAA credit ratings, and the deep pockets to do new things. And so if each new Starbucks were to use local furniture, local designers, and customize its product offerings to local tastes, would it not simply be a case where one gets all the benefits of a large corporation with the uniqueness of a local mom-and-pop? Or should we hold up our copy of No Logo and say long live the local entrepreneur?
Image: Flickr
