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.
Noam Chomsky on the Roots of American Racism
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/noam-chomsky-on-the-roots-of-american-racism/
Pogo,
Why is it I fell I’m the older man in this situation?
NSFW (centers on use of racist lingo)
Squeeky can dress up her and their racism in poetry, but it’s just putting lipstick on a pig.
Has anyone here ever seen a picture of the Board of Directors of Starbucks? Whitest bunch of white dudes (and a couple of dudettes) I’ve ever seen.
Carol – someone was kind enough to point out that all the ads for Race Together only used whites or white hands.
@Pogo,
Oh my goodness! This exchange deserves an Irish Poem:
The Cut Of Your Jive???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
Oh, pity the white, liberal flacks. . .
Like Williams, and Inga, and Max.
Their racialist twitter
Turns angry and bitter
When it comes face to face with the facts!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Pogo,
The origin dates back to working the slave master’s fields… I think I’m repeating myself here. However pogo, I missed the link from THAT history to the definition found all across the board (check the dictionary) that it now means: misleading or deceptive talk or behavior, as to give a false impression.
So, how did it go from working a long day singing hymns to pass the time into a negative connotation? Who does this and why? Who does it benefit to turn a past cultural experience into pejorative bent on deriding a black man’s state of affairs/condition?
Now this explanation should be interesting…
Max-1 – follow the thread.
Spoken Soul: The Story of Black English, the book I quoted above, was written by two black university professors, Russell Rickford of Cornell along with his father, Stanford University linguist John Rickford.
And therefore you are saying these two black men are racist for using the phrase “shuck and jive.”
I think you are racist for demeaning their work.
“as I have shown here above…”
Where did you demonstrate that?
Your own quote agreed with mined, that the phrase identified it as “African-American Slang” that “dates back to the 1870s and was an “originally southern ‘Negro’ expression”
Where did you “prove” it was racist?
Nowhere I can see.
Admit you are wrong.
Pogo Hears a Who
Max I was right. Admit it.
= = =
Like I said earlier pogo, It’s not 3 O’clock yet.
Pogo
Why not go back to your lab and see if you can contribute something bragging about. Pulling the wings off flies isn’t gonna win you any prizes.
Wadewilliams
It’s racially charged. Period.
= = =
As we see here Wade, it’s never when “they” use it…
… However, when called out for it’s use, we become their racist.
Bigots on display. It’s usually just under the surface, but it’s good to see it on full display now and again.
I can’t be a bigot, I’m Puerto Rican. Truth is, if I were a LIBERAL Hispanic you libs would be all over yourselves trying to suck up.
Tony – it would help if you were half-black and female. You would tick three boxes for some company. 🙂
pogo,
No, you are wrong. As I said, as others have said and as I have shown here above, it IS a racist phrase. No matter the amount of your denial, the use of such phrases ARE racist in nature. It’s your moment of, “no, Paul said the sky is green dagnabbit!”
At this point pogo, I just nod and allow you to be wrong because THAT is what makes you happy.
@Pogo
They seem to be operating under the opinion that if they say more forcefully and often to you that you will hear it and understand. Kinda like screaming English louder at somebody who speaks only Spanish. . .LOL!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Wade, why do you demean phrases originated by black slaves?
Check your white privilege, racist.
Wadewilliams – first time I heard the phrase Pam Grier said it. It could not be racially charged. 😉
Max I was right. Admit it.
Knock off the bull sh**, Pogo.
It’s racially charged. Period.
See?
Max’s own research shows it’s not a racist term, so unable to defend that tack anymore, now he claims the fact that you used it at all is racist because he says so.
The doubling down on error is typical gamma male evasion.