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.
@happypappies
“Not sure how to take your remark about me never being happy about hymns.”
I was referring to Max, not you.
He called “shuck and jive” a term that had to do with slaves singing spirituals in the field, which it clearly did not. He could not point to any reference proving that, because the term applies to a form of deceit.
“I didn’t mean to be disrespectful.”
You weren’t.
Pogo Hears a Who
Thank you for Clearing that up. I couldn’t believe that because you are very much on the Right and that comment I made had the Shuck and Jive with the Doo Wops of the 50s and 60s. Can you just see our Liberal bunch going into a place like the Imperial Club where I am from in St Louis and watching something like this. This is just the 45 but it went on all the time a little bit before my time and when my Husband was young.
“…a thinly disguised klan meeting for some as evidenced by the racist, mysogenistic, anti-Semitic and homophobic…”
In which mespo, unable to mount any argument at all, falls back on vile slander.
Ad hominem is all they’ve got.
Must not cover logic in law school.
OK, this is an old video, but still relevant.
Whoops! Wrong Germany post! It’s late!
To Paul C.S.
“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.”
I thought part of the purpose of a coffee shop was to go to have conversations about controversial subjects. But, I can also see where some (most) just want to get their coffee without being broadsided by politics.
But seriously, this is an important but difficult conversation, so this approach was bound to go poorly. I like the idea, but there are too many angry feelings that can end up complicating the discussion such that it devolves into ugliness. 🙁
Actually, there are interesting concerns on both sides on this thread. I just wish it wouldn’t end up becoming vitriolic and full of finger-pointing.
“The customer might hold a political or social issue dearly but most individuals do not want to constantly occupy themselves with such matters”
Except for people like those commenting on a political blog! LOL
Mespo,
Finally started reading comments on this thread. Good grief!
Elaine, DBQ, happypappies and I are having a nice conversation about standardized tests over on the Germany/Snowden post. 🙂
If the thinking was to engage the customer, this is such a forced engagement it makes the whole ordeal meaningless. Especially when the engager is too busy queing up the next latte. It would be a better use of time for the CEO to come down and steam some milk to afford the barista some time philosophical discourse.
“If the thinking was to engage the customer, this is such a forced engagement it makes the whole ordeal meaningless”
OK, Thanks for fixing my coffee; here’s a buck for the tip jar. On the other hand it’s worth $5 to me if you just give me the coffee and let me drink it in peace and quiet.
bfm – my thinking is $1 for the tip jar if they leave me alone, I take $5 out of the tip jar if they want to take race with me. 😉
Yeah, but you are such a hard liner. Must be that Jesuit upbringing.
bfm – as I try to convince my wife, even though I am retired, I think of my time as worth something. In this case it would be worth $5 of their tip money.
At one time this was a legal blog.
“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…”
**********************
Max-1, of course you’re right. This blog’s comments section has degenerated into a thinly disguised klan meeting for some as evidenced by the racist, mysogenistic, anti-Semitic and homophobic slanders by the usual suspects. Not reigning in patriot is the last straw. JT was warned about this crowd but chose to do nothing. Darren bears some responsibility but ultimately his hands are tied. Once we policed ourselves around here and trolls were few and far between. That was outlawed by the civility policy which became more bludgeon than shield. The conversation has deteriorated since then and I’m tired of serving truth to swine. Enjoy your time here. I’m done here like most other decent folks.
mespo – if you hold yourself out to be ‘decent folk’ I am glad to see the back of you.
Say it ain’t so. Who’s going to carry on the good fight now?
mespo727272
What nonsense are you referring to. I was serious about the church. This has been going on for a while has been in the making. So, I don’t get the negativity at all really unless it’s just party talk agenda. I haven’t seen anything like it on the threads in a long time and I speak like this frequently making a fool of myself this way frequently. If that is what you see it as. Being that I don’t live in Milwaukee or something like that which has racially segregated events. And you are talking about my hood. Unbelievable.
I am happy. But I am not going to let it go and have you trash something that is beautiful that is happening in my town.
“So, how did it go from working a long day singing hymns to pass the time into a negative connotation?”
You are mistaken.
It had a negative connotation from the start.
It implied deceit then, as it does now.
It was never about ‘singing hymns.’
Pogo
Not sure how to take your remark about me never being happy about hymns. They weren’t really hymns anyway. More of a Royal Rhythmaires
“Shuck And Jive” Seriously. We are good. Can move all over the place in musical time.
I wanted to get back with you anyway because I was wrong about something that I argued with you about. Regarding Nature VS Nurture and Inheriting it Genetically. I am an argumenitive cuss. Strident at times because I have way too much going on in my mind. So, I started thinking about Darren’s Observer Effect and the DNA and that was all it took to get me moving into my Computer Data Banks. I brought up The Entropy Theory with Big Bang and Relativity and the 7 arrows of time and the Quantum Physics Computer with the DNA and dissolved the RNA and saw the Wave effect and how it went against the 6 different – well it looked Kantian Pogo – like it went Against the 7 Arrows – I said Nahhhh – so I dug some more and It appears they threw that out and then kind of got off on tangenta and are looking at it again.
Anyway. I understand what you were saying now and I didn’t know you were a Doctor so I apologize. Okay? 😉 I didn’t mean to be disrespectful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UkJSxhoyJs
@happypappies
Moi??? Oh, I am not one to go around stirring up trouble. It is just that the liberals love talking about race as long as you follow their white-guilt ridden script. But, if you can think for yourself and ask those uncomfortable questions that you aren’t supposed to ask unless you are really tres declasse’, then they tend to degenerate into name calling and mindless blathering.
Their day has come and gone, and their nonsense only flies among their choir.
Squeeky Fromm
Declasse’ Girl Reporter
Max-1
We also cannot allow ourselves to forget that the hideous slave labor camps of the new “empire of liberty” were a primary source for the wealth and privilege of American society, as well as England and the continent. The industrial revolution was based on cotton, produced primarily in the slave labor camps of the United States.
This statement is an invention worthy of Glenn Beck
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution
I am sorry to take issue with you here but I even Googled it and all I came up with was Noam and his imagination
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/18/noam_chomsky_intentional_ignorance_fuels_american_racism/
I personally love all of my black friends and we are working on community relations. I resent this stirring up that an old hippie like Chomsky is doing. I have my eye on him at all times. Seriously I do. I have him on appearances wanted because I live in a university town and although believe in free speech I consider him undesirable and would want to know what he said so I could editorialize it the next day.
Max, you misread the etymology, again.
Blacks used the phrase about themselves, lying to their slave owners.
The phrase persisted and seemed to die out in popular use in the 1970s.
It is used only rarely now.
“Jive” lived on, however.
It was not racist in origin or racist in use.
Your posts did not prove your statement that it was racist.
Your seem to imply, without stating, that it must be racist because a black man did not say the word. That is inventive, and requires the belief that either
1) Max can read minds and discern intent
Or
2) whites are not allowed to use black phrases even if they are in no way racist.
That is certainly inventive thinking, but not proof of anything.
Indeed you proved nothing, other than your own difficulty with reading comprehension (or mendacity, or both).
118 Responses
on 1, March 22, 2015 at 5:02 pm Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
Good article. As for me, I get enough subliminal politicking on TV, every time the idiots do an anti-gun show, or some sort of mean white person picking o innocent negroes, or the pro Gay nonsense. But, it would have been interesting to ask a barista, “Hey, how come most Black folks don’t get married and have their kids in wedlock??? Is some White guy blocking their access to the county clerk where they hand out marriage licenses???” or, “Hey, how come is it 60 years after Brown v. Board of education is it that sooo many Black kids can’t read or write worth a hoot, and think it is “acting White” to get an education???”
But, they would probably just spit in my chai tea the next time I was in.
Squeeky – that is what is happening on this blog again since you showed up here so welcome home. Like I said. I spend a lot of time in my Home Town trying to interact with anyone that needs help and we just did a Gospel Fest with an all Black Church that has never been reached out to before so we don’t just talk about it. We walk the walk 😉
@Darren
Thanks! I will do that.
Go to Amazon and look up the book:
Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder For Blacks To Succeed.
This comment was on point:
“Can Affirmative Action and similar programs be hurting those it intends to help? To even raise this question will be puzzling to many of us, but social policies based on emotion and empathy, the ones that “feel” right, often have the worst unintended consequences. This book examines them all in detail.
I would say that Riley’s thesis roughly boils downs to this: Affirmative Action and other well-intended programs are essentially training wheels for blacks. They may have had their place early on, but continued reliance on them is now more harmful than helpful. He does a thorough job researching relevant data and provides a strong case for this.
He reminds me of Dambisa Moyo, Zambian economist, who reveals to clueless Westerners that endless aid was actually hurting Africa by creating a culture of dependence and thwarting initiative and self-reliance. The same is true here in the US. In many large American cities, generations of black households have grown up on welfare, creating a distorted sense of expectations and entitlement. If you, your parents, and your grandparents were all substantially supported by government, why would you believe that anything else is likely, or even possible? If, on the other hand, like so many Asian-American success stories, you believe the only way to make it is study your tail off, and become self-reliant, then so many doors will be open to you in medicine, engineering, business, and more.
Riley really has his work cut out for him. There are more unquestioning drones in modern America than the skies of Afghanistan. He will be called all the usual names–Uncle Tom, Self-hater–used by the Politically Correct to punish those who color outside the lines. But if he can change the minds of just a few, create a few more black superstars like Ben Carson, etc, then it will be all worth it. ”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Good to see progressives on this blog behaving as expected. “Racism” “KKK”
“sexism”. Yawn. No arguments – just name calling.
Oh trust me Paul C.
I’m done talking about you.
Starbucks sucks – overpriced coffee that doesn’t taste good. I have no doubt this is part of Starbucks positioning itself to appeal to progressive clientele. It also insulates them against charges that they are a whiter than white Corporation selling coffee to well to do white people. I’ve seen very few Hispanics or Blacks in Starbucks despite the Diversity of my city.
MALL OF AMERICA SECURITY CATFISHED BLACK LIVES MATTER ACTIVISTS, DOCUMENTS SHOW
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/18/mall-americas-intelligence-analyst-catfished-black-lives-matter-activists-collect-information/
Help please if anyone is listening. Comment chewed up.
Thanks!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky Fromm,
Links to Amazon’s homepage are not permitted by this website’s settings. You can remove this and repost.