By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
Many are aware of Starbucks Corporation’s “Race Together” campaign where company senior management proffered to promote a dialogue on race relations among their customers. The main initial manifestation of the decision was for baristas to write the words “Race Together” on cups and encouraging a discussion on the matter. Cups were also adorned with labels furthering the message.
While there is little doubt that most persons in the United States want a harmonious relationship between all citizens, there is a question on whether such a campaign is in the interest of shareholders and customers who might be put off by such practices.
For full disclosure your author owns stock in Starbucks Corporation and has a close family member who for six years worked at Starbucks headquarters but does not presently.
CEO Howard Shultz is renowned for championing positive social and economic benefits to those affiliated with Starbucks and its company. The company offered health care benefits to part-time employees when the market generally did not; advocated fair trade and worker benevolence for suppliers in foreign nations; and offered grant money to laudable social causes in the United States and other nations. Such efforts continue to bring a sense of goodwill and a perception in the general public of being a responsible corporation even among those individuals who object to the notion of large corporations having a dominant position.
Yet, Starbucks might, despite having all the best intentions, have overstepped itself on some of the more up-front aspects of the Race Together campaign.
A common mistake made in marketing and other company strategies is that the customer base or targeted consumer shares the same goal that the company leadership does and will acquiesce to the advertising method. In this respect Starbucks might have made its mistake with the latter—that the consumer would acquiesce to the Race Together campaign methodology.
It is a safe bet that the Starbucks consumer favors good race relations, but it was too risky to assert this message, for lack of better words, “in the face” of consumers.
Starbucks marketing strategy offers its customers a relaxing, personable, and “hip”, experience in addition to providing products desired by consumers. But injecting controversial or uncomfortable topics into this approach can detract from the experience, especially if the company wants to create the notion as a coffee shop being a form of escape or temporary retreat from the concerns each customer carries.
The customer might hold a political or social issue dearly but most individuals do not want to constantly occupy themselves with such matters, and this is a place where Starbucks might have miscalculated. What might have been a priority for discussion for the company leadership is not going to always be that for the consumer.
The media outlets report significant negative reaction to the campaign, mostly from the mandated interaction upon baristas handed down from corporate and the messages on the cups. Corporate, at least politely, directed employees to discuss the matter with customers. Unfortunately for the baristas this met with disapproval from enough customers that they individually abandoned the practice asked by senior management. In essence they were placed into a difficult position in wanting to please their superiors and not upsetting the customers from whom they derive their income.
On a broader scale the campaign was criticized as being opportunistic in that it coincided a contentious and churning period of race relations in the media and national dialogue. Others countered that it would be difficult for an employee to fully engage in such dialogue in the limited time available during customer service.
As of today, Starbucks reportedly will end the practice of writing “Race Together” on the cups which caused the most controversy. Starbucks Spokesman Jim Olsen said the initiative would instead continue on a broader approach and that the cup campaign was just a catalyst for the discussion Starbucks will continue to foster in the form of meetings, ad campaigns, and other forms of advocacy. Mr. Olsen stated the withdrawal of the cup effort was not in reaction to the criticism garnered but said “Nothing is changing. It’s all part of the cadence of the timeline we originally planned.”
In a company memo, CEO Schultz wrote “While there has been criticism of the initiative – and I know this hasn’t been easy for any of you – let me assure you that we didn’t expect universal praise.”
As stated before, there are risks in making any kind of social or political statement in approaching customers. It generally works very well with those who agree with the message and is quite effective in sending away those who do not. If politics is to be introduced a corporation had best be prepared for the cost / benefit of doing so. Even in this case, those having agreement with the company could easily tire of having more and more messages being directed at them where a perception could take hold that walking into Starbucks is going to involve yet another political cause and not an environment for which customers have become accustomed. They might instead choose another competitor that offers neutrality and suddenly divergent groups begin to strangely congregate because they have found a refuge from their former coffee purveyor’s politics.
Should Starbucks and other large corporations continue to engage in supporting worthwhile social benefit campaigns? Of course, but they should be mindful of the limits to which their customers will be willing participants.
Yet, all things considered, regardless of any meritorious or controversial actions taken on behalf of Starbucks or others, millions of dollars of free advertising was quickly bestowed by the mainstream media for this campaign: good or bad. But one thing that can be certainly agreed upon, Starbucks tried to do the right thing.
By Darren Smith
Sources:
KOMO News
Starbucks Corporation
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
I understand Starbucks has renamed their creamer “white guilt.”
I grew up in Long Beach, CA. Through school and college. We didn’t talk about race, ever. People were white, black, and brown. I remember hearing about Watts riots, but nothing happened in Long Beach. Watts was a world away. The first time I came in direct contact with racism was when EOE became a requirement, with forms, reporting, etc. So the big push for black and brown. Very few applied, but if you were breathing you got a job. One guy fell asleep at his desk (he played in a band at night). One day he didn’t show and wasn’t to be found. We hired a very nice girl who could barely speak English. Everybody helped her learn. That wasn’t about a government program, people just wanted to help her. She was still there when I left that branch, doing well. Her co-workers did that, Elizabeth Warren, not the gov’t!
great video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbdxeFcQtaU
TEDxHampshireCollege – Jay Smooth – How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Discussing Race
Max is a prime example of why ‘talking about race’ is stupid, at Starbucks or anywhere.
Lefties don’t want a conversation about race, they want to give a progressive homily.
@ Max
I know. Your comment was funny. There I made a compliment. Only 4 more to a free Egg McMuffin!!
@ Wade
I’m trying to imagine why YOU imagine that all commenters here are in church on Sunday.
DBQ,
In a “gentlemen’s club” those eyes seen below the shoulders are commonly called breasts.
trooper,
You sure a work. The Frappuccino wasn’t around in the ’80s. Nice try at a racial smear… why is this allowable? More So, do you seek to attain a level of incredulity only trolls aspire for?
That requires eye contact above the shoulders… can you manage?
That made me laugh on many levels. First….imagining a set of eyes below the shoulders. Like some sort of science fiction alien with googly eyes where the chest is………. Then thinking about that joke/complaint that women make. My eyes are UP here! dagnabit!
Funny.
Gotta laugh.
Just imagining what it is like in these commenter’s churches on Sunday morning when the pastor asks his parishioners to turn to his neighbor and kick him in the shins.
Gotta love ‘Merica! (Where screaming at a 16 year old manning the register is applauded.)
LOL… diversity discussions and training is a “progressive liberal conspiracy”.
Do these people even know how they make themselves sound with such nonsense? It’s as if they long for the anonymity wearing a white sheet gives them…
This is nothing new. I remember in the 1980’s when the Reverend AL Sharpton lead a protest against Starbucks. He quoted statistics compiled by the Justice Department that many more Vanilla Bean Frappuccino were being ordered than the Mocha Caramel at the 72nd Street store.. He could not let that stand. He demanded an affirmative action be taken by government decree to make sure that the proper percentage of Mocha be served.
He had only one response.
http://i.imgur.com/nM8kk.jpg
Of course this was before he went on a diet and got his MSNBC show.
The whole Starbucks thing is just a case of Progressive Self-pleasuring. It never would accomplish anything positive (kind of like the Redskins controversy) outside of making Progressive have symbolic org*sms. Which, they could do in other ways without making the rest of us participate. . .To wit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv-34w8kGPM
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
BFM
I will stick to buying champagne cocktails at the nearest gentleman’s club.
= = =
That requires eye contact above the shoulders… can you manage?
This was a monumentally stupid business decision.
Shut up and brew.
Seems Mr. DBQ is just as much of a pain in the a**, as Mrs. DBQ.
Oh….you have NO idea 😀
For references… I worked for Starbucks back in the day when there were no writing on cups and small WAS called small and venti never existed. Before Frappuccinos… and whole bean was ONLY scooped and tea was still part of the name. I stayed with them for a decade running several stores. I think I got out at the right time. Many stores have gotten away from personal touches to customer service, i.e. actually learning the names of regular customers instead of an auto-response, “what name on the cup?” I so want to say, and have said many times, “I’m in here four days a week. You should know my name by now.”
Yep, gone are the days of, the upside down cup = decaf, the cup with the three beans = triple shot, the cup with the sugar packet gets sugar added… et. I’m surprised they aren’t writing the size on the cup just so they can “remember”.
Max-1 – I cannot figure out with all the corporate rebranding going on that a “tall’ is really the smallest size they have.
According to the Starbucks staff briefing paper, baristas were “being charged with the lofty mission of helping “heal and move the country forward … creating more empathy, compassion and understanding one conversation at a time…”
Starbuck’s CEO lives in an exclusive gated community if nine homes in Seattle.
Starbuck’s top management of 12 is all white save for one guy who appears to be black-Asian.
Hmmm.
Seems Mr. DBQ is just as much of a pain in the a**, as Mrs. DBQ.
Let’s hear it for good old ‘Merican hospitality!!
Why would anyone try to have a meaningful conversation with an employee acting in accordance with corporate policy.
Thanks, but if I am in the mood for serious conversation with a paid employee I think I will stick to buying champagne cocktails at the nearest gentleman’s club.