Brand Management
December 3, 2009
Jon Cook has an interesting post up at Reuters about the extent to which Starbucks is going to open new stores that people aren't supposed to know are owned by Starbucks. He calls it a "brand crisis" - I'd say that's pretty accurate.
(from flickr user ๛Abdulrahman`ρнσт σgяαρнєя` )
I've been known to be fairly hostile toward corporate chain businesses. I try to avoid them whenever possible, but I think people get confused about why I feel this way. It's not that I dislike corporate chains simply because they are chains, I dislike them because they typically sell a good or service that's worse than an easily available alternative.
Starbucks is a great example. There are two reasons I would patronize a Starbucks: 1) I am meeting someone there and it's in a convenient location or 2) I'm at an airport, it's 5am and nothing else is open. I can get stronger and better-tasting at my favorite coffee shop. If Starbucks opened a new store in my neighborhood "disguised" as something else, and I didn't know this fact, but the coffee tasted the same, I probably still wouldn't go there, because the product is still inferior. This is the problem I have with a lot of the casual-dining chain restaurants. I have almost no interest in eating at a Chili's, Applebees, Bennigan's, Olive Garden, Ruby Tuesday, etc. Generally, the food tastes bland and I can get a much better meal elsewhere.
One chain that is ahead of the pack is Chipotle. I've eaten at many San Francisco style burrito places in many cities, and in many cases, Chipotle sells the best food. Obviously every chain had to start-off selling something that a lot of people wanted to buy. It seems like rapid growth is often related to deteriorating product quality. That's too bad.
(from flickr user ๛Abdulrahman`ρнσт σgяαρнєя` )I've been known to be fairly hostile toward corporate chain businesses. I try to avoid them whenever possible, but I think people get confused about why I feel this way. It's not that I dislike corporate chains simply because they are chains, I dislike them because they typically sell a good or service that's worse than an easily available alternative.
Starbucks is a great example. There are two reasons I would patronize a Starbucks: 1) I am meeting someone there and it's in a convenient location or 2) I'm at an airport, it's 5am and nothing else is open. I can get stronger and better-tasting at my favorite coffee shop. If Starbucks opened a new store in my neighborhood "disguised" as something else, and I didn't know this fact, but the coffee tasted the same, I probably still wouldn't go there, because the product is still inferior. This is the problem I have with a lot of the casual-dining chain restaurants. I have almost no interest in eating at a Chili's, Applebees, Bennigan's, Olive Garden, Ruby Tuesday, etc. Generally, the food tastes bland and I can get a much better meal elsewhere.
One chain that is ahead of the pack is Chipotle. I've eaten at many San Francisco style burrito places in many cities, and in many cases, Chipotle sells the best food. Obviously every chain had to start-off selling something that a lot of people wanted to buy. It seems like rapid growth is often related to deteriorating product quality. That's too bad.
I gotta be honest, as a consumer I would probably be more likely to go to a coffee shop if Starbucks didn't own it.
Great post!
I agree with you about chain restaurants for the most part. Chipotle is also AMAZING, I agree!
The only things that keep me going to chains like Panera are 1) convenience (I work in the suburbs) and 2) I get gift cards there!
Starbucks, though, is a whole other beast. I don't think it can be fairly lumped in with bland, boring chains like Applebees and Fridays. For me, it's more complex than that.
For a few reasons:
1) Starbucks popularized the coffee shop trend. And coffee shops are an asset to the community - they provide places to meet, work, and relax. They are a great alternative to bars for socializing - and adding more caffeine to a community is usually less damaging than adding more alcohol. :) Good discussion is often cultivated in coffee shops.
2) Starbucks treats their workers well - they are consistently ranked in the best 100 places to work. They provide health insurance to even PART time employees, which is HUGE.
3) They are the world's biggest purchaser of fair trade coffees. This isn't to say that I'm not incredibly disappointed that they don't have a bigger percentage of fair trade coffees or do more educate the public about fair trade. But, they are helping create demand for more ethically produced coffee.
Not to write a book in the comments section, but this is something that I have been thinking about for a while. :) I am pretty staunchly anti-restaurant chain and prefer local coffee shops, but I don't agree that Starbucks is the devil. (You're not saying that, but so many people do!)
Hey Rob, I know you post wasn't specifically about us, but I'd agree that in A LOT of corporate venues you'll get "normal" or bland food/drink. The strength of national brands is consitent experience across the region or country. But I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that I think you'd be surprised at how our menu has changed at Ruby Tuesday if you haven't visited recently.
We've revamped our menu over the last 18 months and it's changed from the regular bar and grill food to high quality items and we're continually working on making it a better experience.
For flavor I'd recommend trying two of my favorites, the New Orleans Seafood with succotash as your side. If you have the chance I'd love to hear your feedback - gbaker (at) rubytuesday (dot) com.
Thanks.
Gavin Baker
Social Media Manager
Ruby Tuesday, Inc.
http://twitter.com/gavinbaker
Daniel, can you elaborate on that?
Ashley, I think your number one is debatable and I refer you to this article from a 1993 issue of Cleveland Magazine (which I’ve been meaning to blog about for a while), in which Carl Jones (founder of Phoenix Coffee) predicts that Starbucks won't try to bring stores to Cleveland because the local coffee-shop presence was already very strong. Now, you can debate who has been more successful in this regard. Starbucks has more stores in the area than Phoenix, but there have also been a number of Starbucks stores that have failed in recent times. The former Starbucks on Lee Road, for example, failed a few years ago while the Phoenix a few blocks to the south has held strong. So it’s not entirely clear if the coffee shop trend was inevitable and the presence of Starbucks is a convenient post hoc ergo propter hoc.
I agree with your other two points. Obviously, I don’t think Starbucks is worth boycotting on any political grounds, I just think their product could use some improvement.
Gavin, Thanks for stopping. You’re correct; I think it’s been about 4 years since I’ve been to a Ruby Tuesday. I think the challenge for a chain that I’ve already written off to sell me the idea of a “new and improved” is tough, especially because I’ve heard it before from other brands and didn’t feel like the claims lived up to the hype. Denny’s is a good example here. I’ve gone there primarily because they’re open when most others are closed. Yet despite their claims that the food is getting better, to me it seems to be getting worse…
Rob - you have a good point, it's certainly an uphill battle to get those "burned" in the past back in.
Hopefully you'll end up in a scenario where we are the only choice and you'll get to experience the new menu. If you'd like a mostly risk free way of trying us out, if you sign up for our email, you'll receive a Buy One Get One Free coupon within 48 hours. It's good for any of the ribs, seafood, pasta and steak.
If you're interested you can sign up http://www.rubytuesday.com/soconneted.asp - if not, feel free to edit this part of the comment out.
Thanks
Gavin Baker
Social Media Manager
Ruby Tuesday, Inc.
http://twitter.com/gavinbaker
I'm just now getting around to reading this post, and the Reuters article seems to have been taken down. Was it controversial? Did it get moved? Any ideas?
I honestly don't know what happened to the original post. My guess is that it may have gotten lost in the Reuters website redesign? I would hope they'd know better than to simply make content disappear.