Starbuck;s is not an experiance , It's just a warm tasteless liquid and thats apparently passed off as coffee

I don't know whether considering other people's views means anything to you, but there are millions of people who would disagree with you in a heart beat.

Unfortunately they are constructed drinks that appeal to our insaitable appetite for fat and sugar and are helping us all become fatter and fatter. Also they all look the same wherever you are in the world so yet again diversity is lost and unhealthy habits are spread.
And their coffee isn't very good and their mugs are too thick.

Hi Rachel, thanks for stopping by!

Yes they are constructed but people choose to drink them. The fact that they all look the same is an important part of their branding, although if you read some of the comments below you'll see they are experimenting with different ideas.

Came across the Superbrands Survey 2009/10 at the weekend - a list of the top 500 'superbrands' in the UK, voted for by a panel of 'experts' and consumers. The assessment criteria are quality; reliability; and difference from competitors. Starbucks charted at 67 - the highest place for any company in the Restaurant & Coffee Shop category.

So whatever the quality of their experience, it seems to be more attractive to consumers than the competition. You can see the full list at http://tinyurl.com/5tkz4u

Thanks for that Jonathan. I read this this morning on the subject of 'Stealthbucks' :-)

http://bit.ly/1ay0Pb

Thanks for the link, Scott. Really interesting read and great to see what it looks like!

Yeah It is cool to see it in action. We must tweetup soon BTW :-)

The whole discussion around values and their role is really interesting. As you said Scott, every successful, global business works to a set of values, and an interesting explanation of the necessity and value (?) of values can be found in 'A book about Innocent' by the guys at Innocent Drinks.

Their description of values:
"...they provide a simple set of guidelines and rules to play by; a few non-negotiable principles that govern your behaviour.'
They then go on to list their values - Natural; Entrepreneurial; Generous; Commercial; Responsible - and explain how they apply each of them to their business, and how they came up with them.

When you put this in the context of their relationship with Coca-Cola (http://tinyurl.com/d8h74x) it helps you to understand why they're important and when they're needed - if you want to (try and) maintain the integrity of your brand.

The book is a great read for anyone running a business.

Firstly thanks for the tip on the book - I've added it to my wish list. I didn't know Coca-Cola had a 20% stake either!

As for the rest of your comment - love it. That quote about "non-negotiable principles that govern your behavour" is bang on. As you well know, those values are so important because every brand decision, every marketing action, every product change is then made in the light of your brand values. Without them, you loose focus, consistency, and therefore, potency.

Hi Scott

I think Starbucks undoubtedly delivers an experience - whether you like or not is another matter. But I don't think it's alone in doing that - all of its competitors do too, in slightly different ways - but as you say, Starbucks created the model.

What's interesting with Starbucks is that with their 'stealth' rebrand, rolling out to its first store in Seattle this week - is that they are completely reinventing the 'experience' for their customers. They are stepping away from the familiar Starbucks experience and trying to create the feel of an independent, 'local', 'authentic' coffee house - a completely new approach (for their brand), aimed at delivering a completely different experience.

But it is still a manufactured experience, with every single element closely monitored and nothing left to chance. It's a facsimile of an independent, 'local', 'authentic' coffee house.

You still get an 'experience' if you go to a genuine independent, local, authentic coffee house - which ever country you are in - but it probably hasn't been 'created', and there certainly won't be a User Manual for staff to refer too. But the 'problem' with that - from a business perspective - is that you can't recreate that. It's unique. You can't duplicate that in thousands of cities, in hundreds of countries.

In response to therioman, I think you're off target on people going to Starbucks 'because it's there'. That isn't how they've grown to be a global giant, or how any other company - no matter what they're selling - grows form local to national to international. You will get some people who go to Starbucks because it's convenient, but you can't build a multinational business on convenience customers. You build it on loyalty, and loyalty is built on a brand, and a brand is built on values.

Regardless on whether you like their values, or their products, you can't deny that Starbucks has been phenomenally successful. True, it's suffered during the global recession, but they're not alone there. And the reason they have been successful is that were able to use their brand to deliver a consistent experience to their customers. And their customers enjoyed that experience.

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for the comment - the point I like is where you said "But it is still a manufactured experience, with every single element closely monitored and nothing left to chance."

This is why the writers of "Experience Economy" insist that products are 'made', services are 'delivered' and experiences are 'staged'.

The whole thing in Starbucks *is* staged, just like theatre. So is Disney. So is Harrods, where a Harrods bag is given for any purchase, no matter how small. So is the Apple Store. So is the Ritz.

Staging an experience, however, does not mean that it isn't genuine. No one goes to the theatre and then protests that they were acting :-)

You said:
------------
In response to therioman, I think you're off target on people going to Starbucks 'because it's there'. That isn't how they've grown to be a global giant, or how any other company - no matter what they're selling - grows form local to national to international.
------------

I guess what I'm trying to balance off is Scott's commentary which is not representative of the majority of customers IMO - and certainly consistently not the opinion of various surveys. Starbucks certainly doesn't offer a consistent experience. I've had very variable experience - maybe that's because I don't drink coffee, just the Hot Chocolate they do, but Starbucks is for me (and in a straw poll in our office) the least preferred overall (2 people suggested they preferred it, the rest Nero/Costa).

------------
You will get some people who go to Starbucks because it's convenient, but you can't build a multinational business on convenience customers. You build it on loyalty, and loyalty is built on a brand, and a brand is built on values.
------------

I'm not sure that's true. Is Starbucks built on Values? Or the trend for fast café culture Or something else?

------------
Also, going back to this experience thing (not your point Jonathan I know!) - but if you buy a Starbucks to have in, you get a mug. Not branded, or personalised.... so does the "magic" go scott?

Another point too - do you really think that they "prepare" the milk per coffee just for you? (If so, pretty silly that you see it poured from the same semi-skim 4 pint (or whatever metric is) bottle). Perhaps it's no more complicated than less milk per time = faster to heat/serve, saves it cooling if the store gets a quiet moment (which they do) and numerous other more normal reasons.

I can't help but think you over-value the rationale for them doing certain things - most of them almost certainly are not genuinely for experience.

As I said in previous comment, Starbucks is the poster child for Café Culture, especially if one wants to provide global commentary. Costa and Nero simply don't live in the US, nor have they grown to the place of influence that Starbucks have. This isn't a commentary on Starbucks being better than every other coffee chain - it is a commentary on their mass-customisation experience that they have built into a *global* brand.

All brands are all built on values. 'Brand value' is an integral part of any brand strategy and recognised as such. It is taught in textbooks, universities, and in board rooms. Values create focus, and focus is necessary for a brand to become compelling. This is quite non-negotiable.

Brands are also built on consistency. The point is that any Starbucks you walk into in the world feels the same. This is true of Costa, Nero, Tesco, etc etc. This is also true of Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Burger King - all of which taste the same wherever you go. The top 25 world brands are all inexorably consistent. Another non-negotiable that is text-book branding and marketing.

One of Starbucks' key values is that every customer should have their drink exactly the way they want it, and that each drink is 'hand crafted for the customer'. This is why they have the brand promise 'if your drink isn't exactly as you want it, we will remake it until it is perfect'.

To this end, plenty of positive cues are acted out to make this impression, of which I've already listed a few. You say that "most of them almost certainly are not genuinely for experience", however... I can categorically say that all these things are in place to create the transactional experience of customisation - my agency having worked with them.

The fact that the milk all comes from the same bottle is not a problem at all: the commodity of milk is extracted from the same source - but the product of steamed milk is made individually for each drink. This is the process of economic offering in action.

The fact that the mug when you drink in doesn't have the markings on - true. However they create many cues for personalisation, so the absense of one when you drink IN doesn't weaken the experience. In America they actually take you name when you order and stick your name to the drink when it comes out of the bar the other end. I wouldn't be surprised if I started seeing these same cues at Costa and Nero.

Hi Scott,

As you know I'm certainly not in the "Starbucks" experience fan club. But just a few points on your recent video...

In your video you say that the Italians "amazed" you in effect, but they shouldn't have - the reason when you were in Itality, and you asked for latte, that you got milk is because latte is milk. The italian word for milk is latte. Ergo, you got milk. That we have stolen the word and redefined it to mean "Coffee with Milk" is our problem. The correct name is "café latte" - that'd get you what you asked for.

The italians don't have all the sickly syrups etc because they prefer proper coffee without the fancy rubbish we like to stick in. It's not an experience issue, it's that the coffee quality speaks for itself. Your starbucks (complete with the "poor quality bean" as you put it) needs milk and syrups to taste half credible.

The principle of anything when it comes to food/drink is that good food speaks for itself and does not need to be given something. It is a complete myth that quality food needs to be garnished with a metric tonne of junk. I'm not a foodie myself, but ask any real foodie and that's what they'll say. Ask any michelin inspector. They'll never award the stars for overgarnished food. That's what your starbucks is. The nonsense on the side of the cup isn't for your benefit, it's because they need to know how you want it at the machine.

Talking of starbucks being more expensive than any other high street coffee place, that's also nonsense. I take it you don't frequent Costa - they're *known* as the most expensive, the decor, the environment, the clientele all gear around it. Starbucks is certainly not the most expensive. It's also a total myth that "expensive" means "Good" or "best experience". It just means "expensive".

If you go to Italy they do have all the options you want in a proper coffee place, but they're not wanted (except by Tourists I guess) because they just have coffee proper.

People go to Starbucks "because it's there" - not for the experience, but because it's raining outside and they want to be in the warm, and it is right there. They go there because it is a known brand, they go there because it is less hassle than going home first to make the coffee. They go there because they have a self belief that they're superior to those who go to the traditional café around the corner (who were around a long time before bucks turned up with generic branding, looks, feels, menus and syrups).

I honestly think you're miles off the mark with this Starbucks experience thing. Perhaps that's why in a recent survey, 7 out of 10 people preferred Costa?

Therioman,

Thanks for the discussion. I really do enjoy talking it through and sharpening my insights.

I'll go through your points:

1. I know that 'latte' is milk. In Italy (at least in the regions I've been to), the coffee on the menu revolves around espresso, cappuccino, machiatto. My point is that drinks like 'Café Latte' or Starbuck's 'Caramel Machiatto' don't exist in Italy, the same way 'Chicken Tikka Masala' doesn't exist in India. They are constructions.

2. Italians *do* prefer 'proper' coffee, as in, they have it mostly as espresso, or as cappuccino with honey in. I also prefer pure coffee - the point is that most 'coffee' drinkers would not like it because they like all these drinks with frills.

3. "The nonsense on the side of the cup isn't for your benefit" - that isn't true. Costa don't do that, Nero don't do that. The reason why Starbucks *require* their staff to do it is because they are creating an illusion. Starbucks have spent a lot of time and money getting the whole thing staged to appear a certain way.

They have cues all the way through their checkout experience that are giving the impression of customisation and personalisation. That's why:
- 'hand crafted beverages'
- marks on the cups
- order pads that they give to businesses with the same check marks on for office orders
- each drink made individually - never using one jug of steamed milk for two drinks
- the customer is encouraged to customise as much as possible

4. Obviously I haven't been to Costa recently then. But I do know that a £5 frappucino is pretty expensive. In USA Starbucks will charge $10 for some of their coffee.

The whole point of expense in the experience economy is that you charge more for an experience that a plain service. Premium brands live by the principle that they *have* to charge a certain amount else they loose their exclusivity and upper market position. I'm not saying that price makes something quality, but the fact is Starbucks, and the coffee houses like Costa, etc that are similar to them, charge more for their instore experience.

5. I *do* go to Italy. And yes, in the very prominent tourist places they will cater slightly more. Of course, off the beaten track, they just have good authentic coffee which is what I love.

6. You said:

People go to Starbucks "because it's there" - not for the experience, but because it's raining outside and they want to be in the warm, and it is right there. They go there because it is a known brand, they go there because it is less hassle than going home first to make the coffee. They go there because they have a self belief that they're superior to those who go to the traditional café around the corner (who were around a long time before bucks turned up with generic branding, looks, feels, menus and syrups).

Agreed. Plus the other points I've raised already. But let's not forget that Starbucks are the ones who mass-produced this and are a poster child for a whole generation of café culture.

7. You: "Perhaps that's why in a recent survey, 7 out of 10 people preferred Costa?"

Yes in a recent survey of 200 or so people I think it was, Costa came out trumps. I'm not denying that Costa don't do great coffee etc. The point is, Vince, that Starbucks is the global brand, costa isn't, and Americans don't have Costa - so why stump my audience to just the British?