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.
pogo,
calling out racist lingo makes me the racist??? Um, that’s like saying when you wear that white pointy sheet, I’m the KKK Grand Wizard. SMH…
Prove what I wrote was racist. Let’s start the conversation there. So far we have claims, but no proof.
Yes and sexism. Nice folks.
Wow, racism in its full glory on this thread. Oh well, nothing new.
Maybe racism is just too raw a topic for discussion. Why not start with something less controversial. Hey I know. Hillary is running. Let’s talk about sexism.
http://cdn-ugc.cafemom.com/gen/constrain/500/500/80/2013/05/03/17/hh/d0/po3t39z400.png
Wadewilliams
Oh, I know this… Paul C. and have history here. I’m accustomed to being told it’s three o’clock when it’s 8:30… however I do celebrate with him when it does chime 3.
“Ha, the goal was got. The talk on here, among relatively intelligent folks, is proof that discussion ensued.”
No, the discussion here hasn’t been about race at all.
Most of it has been animus directed at Starbucks for their preening progressive moralism.
There have been a few posts about such conversations being impossible, and then Max chiming in with proof of that by calling people racist.
If that was indeed Starbuck’s goal, then it was got, I guess.
I have difficulty buying that though.
This was never intended to be a conversation. Only a lecture.
Max
Paul Always Wrong Schulte is always wrong. Remember this and you won’t be disappointed.
“I’m sure you’re comfortable being read as a racist, because…</I"
In which Max goes full Alinsky, demonstrating why there can be no actual race 'conversation', just lectures by lefties, namecalling, and assignment of guilt.
Paul C.
See the Jay Smooth video’s to get a clue as to how you can be perceived.
“No, like most white liberals they love to say the right things but stay in their nice neighborhoods.”
So the fact that there are people out there (I’m sure they cover the entire political spectrum, even though you pick on “liberals”) who are hypocrites because they “talk the talk” but don’t “walk the walk” when it comes to race relations means we should discuss race relations less than we do now?
Of course there is hypocrisy all over the political spectrum. Seems to be a part of the human condition. But unlike the left I do not claim moral superiority over my fellow human beings who possess a different opinion. I admit I fear young black males and their crime, most recognize this problem. The difference between a liberal and I, is I will admit it, they will usually feign offense and disgust at such a statement. All the while acting no different than me by avoiding such areas. And before you dismiss me as some white racist yayhoo, I say this as a Puerto Rican. I fear inner city PR areas too. And no, I don’t need Anglo white liberals to save me.
laudyms
Here’s Jay Smooth’s newest video about that incident and the larger issue of discussing race…
Paul C.
Your incredulity precedes you…
… If you’re going to quote me, cut and paste is your friend.
What I wrote: “Remember that Starbucks now supports higher education for employees?”
What you wrote: “… remember that free education from Starbucks?”
Again, false witnessing… er, incorrect citation so as to bluster your agenda.
Nice try buddy. You may pull the wool over a neo-clowns eyes, just not over mine.
Paul C.
I’m sure you’re comfortable being read as a racist, because i’m sure you aren’t.
You just feel comfortable with the language unbecoming of you…
Max-1 and Wade – prove that what I said was racist.
I mean everyone knows that is not the Al Sharpton of the 1980’s in that photo. He is not wearing a Medallion.
laudyms
Jay Smooth is good.
From the way back machine, his first foray into the topic of race.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc
LOL, Nancy Giles thought he was white…
Did we pass the “Starbucks, just SFU” moment yet?
As a retired, upper-management employee, I can say I’ve been in meetings where directors have sat around a table and put forth grand, self-stroking monologues like this. Being extravantly well off can create a comfortable, albeit myopic view of the real world, though that can have side effects: an immunity and insulation from current issues about folks who struggle through their day just trying to eck out a living.
The fact that Starbucks didn’t see the optics problem goes to show you how out of touch the message really was. What a PR nightmare: this will probably be case-studied at universities for a long time. Apparently no one had an inkling that a group of wealthy, predominately white people weighing in on a racially-charged subject -that they should have on a rethink, left alone- could have a such a backlash. Who could have thunk it?
Well, PR should have known. They should all be given the pink slip and let go. The narrative is as astounding as the un-intended patronizing attempt to co-opt a serious, spiraling, out-of-control racial issue where the stakes are the lives of American citizens caught in the middle of a White House administration that has set back racial progress 50 years.
Seriously, barrisita’s now have an HQ approved on-the-job time-out? Nine out of the ten times I go into Stabucks there is a long LINE and those employees work HARD and put up with a lot of crap from customers just trying to get to work. People just want to get in and get out and enjoy their coffee. Again, patronizing.
And therein lies the problem: who gets to define what’s in that paragraph of dialog-inducing healing rhetoric? A group of predominately white people who think they have that answer? Not what the black community wants to see right now.
Since Starbucks has so conveniently dropped their drawers, why are there no black people at the top? WTF? Here’s a solution: retire a bunch of people from the board and go diverse with color. Then you have a little cache to implement socially changing ideas. I bet had there been a few black people up top, this would have been called out as a really bad idea.
As we deal with the rise of a government-mandated national plan to federalize state and local police forces into another arm of the para-military, we as a nation should see that actually in the end, the truth is all lives matter, black and white.
I am not sure that tolerance is such a virtue. Just imagine a tolerant D.I. . . .The recruit has mud in his gun, and the nice tolerant D.I. says, “Oh, that is OK, Nobody is perfect. A little dirt never hurt nobody. ” Somehow, I don’t think this is what a parent would want for their kid who was going through basic training.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Ha, the goal was got. The talk on here, among relatively intelligent folks, is proof that discussion ensued. The discussion here also shows that there is still significant progress to be made if each individual is to be measured by his or her own behavior, intellect, etc. I am still amazed by the differences in perspective (and paradigm) of individuals. NeighborDaveSays: Tolerance is a virtue, not a sin.
Total Aside: Of the few Starbucks I have been in (less than 6 different ones, one in “my” airport, repeatedly) I noted black folks and other “foreigners” employed. Of course, one was in Shanghai, so what could I expect, eh?
Max let me explain it to you in simple terms. It is a joke. You might not like it. You certainly can think it is not funny. But you really shouldn’t take it literally. Ok cupcake?