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.
Tony,
Tell me, you do not fear black crime?
= = =
Don’t you fear white crime, too? Or just black crime?
Trying to understand the motivation of your concerns…
I fear ANY crime. But minority neighborhoods tend to have a disproportionate amount. Tell me one black majority school you would send your kids to. Or a black majority neighborhood you would want to live. My guess is there are few, if any but you probably condemn people who move OUT of such neighborhoods while you live in an upper class white one.
Annie,
It’s never a racist term (Pogo in defence of Paul C.) when they use it to deride a black man running for office… Well, maybe they didn’t directly say it, but 10:1 they voted for the guy who did.
Max-1 – Obama is as much a white man elected President as he is a black man elected President.
Pogo,
A quick wiki produces…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuckin'_and_jivin'#Origin
“According to the 1994 book by Clarence Major, Juba to Jive, a Dictionary of African-American Slang, “shuck and jive” dates back to the 1870s and was an “originally southern ‘Negro’ expression for clowning, lying, pretense.”
And of course Dictionary.com has it’s origins as
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shuck+and+jive
Also, shuck and jive.
Origin Expand
1965-19701965-70
So, what’s a Century of see no evil, hear no evil, say no evil have to do with any of this? … never mind, nothing to see here?
Max-1 – Cuomo is not in my state.
Oh baloney, it’s being used in a racist manner. Such utter complete hypocrisy.
Paul, he is completely wrong about the phrase.
It arose in black culture and is not a racist term, but was commonly used by blacks even as I grew up in the 70s.
He won’t admit it, is my bet.
Pogo – everything I found said that it had a black origin and I remember hearing it in a blacksplotation film for the first time.
Tony
You personify the right. You fear everything.
BOO!
You know nothing about me. I only fear what I need to. Most things I have no fear of whatsoever. Tell me, you do not fear black crime? No slogans or name calling, yes or no?
You know nothing about me. I only fear what I need to. Most things I have no fear of whatsoever. Tell me, you do not fear black crime? No name calling, just answer.
Well, you’re wrong about the phrase “shuck and jive”
“Ben Smith consulted Cassell’s Dictionary of Slang and reported that the source “attributes [the phrase] to a specifically African American–though not racist–origin.” … Pam Spaulding [teacher of African-American studies] posted an etymological reference “:
Pogo,
I addressed Paul C. and what he said/did. I suggested he might want to think before he says/writes racist lingo least he be perceived that way. I didn’t call him a racist, I merely implied that should he keep using racist terms to define his message, that some people will see him as being one. It’s his character I’m concerned about… he should too. NO? So, why defend a friend’s ability to paint themselves this way? Most friends would caution another of the hazards, not pudh them forward into a hazard…
Inga – Andrew Cuomo used roughly the same phrase to Obama. And you do not know what is in my mind. You only know what is in you mind.
In any event, Starbucks is now a no-go zone for me.
I only used them when travelling anyway.
There are other places.
They don’t need my 4 bucks, and I don’t need their prosletyzing.
I got a $50 gift card for Starbucks for Xmas, so I either have to regift it or use it.
DBQ,
Wouldn’t it be so much easier if we all realized we are the same race…
… The human race. NO?
Not labeling, only identifying the obvious.
Paul C. Schulte
mespo – Starbucks is shucking and jivving right now so we will see where it ends.
= = =
Best to look at the phrase “shuck and jive” and it’s context to race relations and the terms origins. Slave terminology used to express their conditions later used to describe black people in economic and social transactions so as to instill distrust. Once used by slaves to make their experience lighter while working in their owner’s fields and once emancipated was later used by whites in pejorative fashion to deride the black man in society as being untrustworthy.
Max-1 – however, I used it against a white man. Neener Neener.
Looks like RIL has been taken over by racists, misogynists, homophobics, ageists, and Islamaphobics. I’m sure there is some bigotry I’ve missed that will show up eventually with this group.
LOL, Nancy Giles thought he was white…
This is the problem we have now with race. How much of your heritage makes you black or white. It reminds me of the old slavery days were they were obsessed with how many or how few drops of Negro blood you could have and be able to be bought and sold as a slave.
Quadroon, Octaroon, Quintaroon. Hexadacroon. Like angels dancing on pins. The division of one from the other based on not just what you look like but by how much “blood” you inherited from the past. Like the old days where people who were of African descent would “pass” based on how they looked and hid their heritage. The whole thing is insane and it seems we are going back to this.
Ridiculous. Have we not evolved since the days of slavery where we classify people? How many drops of blood. How many angels can dance on the head of the racist pins?
SO Nancy doesn’t think that Jay is “Black” enough based on his looks. He thinks he is “Black” based on his genetics. So which is it? Looks? Genetics
How about none..
Max, you misread, again.
You are not discussing the topic, just labelling commenters you dislike as racist and mysoginist and homophobic, etc, etc., in order to allow you to avoid addressing their points.
You label that and then have no need to answer their arguments becaus they are ‘evil’ in your progressive religion. Unclean, and thus unnecessary to engage.
It’s a nice gated community of thought you have, much like the Starbucks CEO.
Paul Always Wrong Schulte
I’ll leave the racism to others – we have no shortage here of examples. However, it remains that you are always wrong.
Max, only in their upside down world. Rational people see them for what they are.
The mere framing of the problems in the black community as “race” problems is the problem. They are not suffering from massive unemployment and poverty and gross ignorance because of RACE problems, but morality problems. 75% of their kids are born out of wedlock, and it is quite common for their young girls to get knocked up at 15 or 16, and then pop out 3 or 4 little b*stards by the time they are 20, each fathered by different baby daddies. This is on them, not white people, except to the extent that white liberals are encouraging them to look elsewhere for solutions to their problems, and enabling the behavior with extra money and no requirement to act responsibly. What they got is a crummy behavior problem, not a race problem.
The Black folks who don’t act like this, who get married and get educations and get jobs don’t seem to have the same sort of problems as their lower class cousins. They fit nicely into white neighborhoods, and nobody minds it if their kids go to school with their kids, or plays with them. Maybe what we need is a Black Shame Month instead of all this Black pride crap, which as I see it, serves only to protect the colored folks from addressing their own problems. They really don’t Whitey to fix what is wrong with them. They can do it themselves.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Annie
you do know that pointing out the inherent misogyny makes you the misogynist…
Holy cow! I just found out that Po is working at Starbucks. Now that explains a lot.
http://clashdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/sbux.jpg