[ Ajouter un commentaire ]
[ Aucun commentaire ]
# Posté le mercredi 26 novembre 2008 10:33
Modifié le jeudi 30 avril 2009 16:33
.
[ Ajouter un commentaire ]
[ Aucun commentaire ]
# Posté le mercredi 26 novembre 2008 09:08
Modifié le jeudi 30 avril 2009 16:31
O ver the past few days while hanging out with a decidedly un-marketing professionaly group of people I had heard a number of people refer, completely absent of irony, to “Starbucks Coffee”. As in “We're going to get Starbuck's Coffee, would you like something?” In my head of course, I was replying “Yes, a grande bold with milk and sweetener with a side of stop calling it Starbuck's coffee.” On the flip side, as a marketer, it was a breathtaking moment. What Juan Valdez had failed to do with some of the best branding, marketing and advertising over the better part of a half century, Howard Shultz had accomplished in just a shade over a decade - turned the world's second most valuable traded commodity into a luxury item owned by one brand.
The question is, of course, how did Starbucks succeed where Colombia failed? The simple answer would be physical retail presence. And that might explain some of it. But I think the larger answer lies in the inherent failings of piggyback branding.
End-users see benefits flowing directly from the brand with whom they have a relationship. In the case of coffee, Starbucks. While a fledgling coffee roastery may gain some benefit from being alligned with the fair trade movement, or shade-grown advocacies, it will only be to a certain point. Of course, the Starbucks v Colombia coffee showdown goes deeper than that. As illustrated by my use of the fair trade movement above, the lustre has fallen off the Colombian coffee brand considerably in recent years. As the mantle of “premium supplier” has fallen not to a country or bean classification but in the case of shade-grown, a method of growing or, in the case of fair trade an entire market system.
Starbucks uses all of the above to drive marketing and branding efforts or even, somewhat cynically, to nudge up price points and margins. But that still doesn't explain how the use of “Starbucks Coffee” in my above example came to be - and for that, I'd like to use some good old fashioned speculation. “Starbucks Coffee” was used not as a designation of quality, but rather as a deliniation of class. If they had said “we're going to get coffee”, a probable reply would be “where are you going?” The reasons behind such a question could be as varied as the person asking is looking for a espresso-based drink or they know a good place nearby. But saying “Starbucks” eliminates the need for that exchange. In other words, at the very least, we know what we're getting.
The question is, of course, how did Starbucks succeed where Colombia failed? The simple answer would be physical retail presence. And that might explain some of it. But I think the larger answer lies in the inherent failings of piggyback branding.
End-users see benefits flowing directly from the brand with whom they have a relationship. In the case of coffee, Starbucks. While a fledgling coffee roastery may gain some benefit from being alligned with the fair trade movement, or shade-grown advocacies, it will only be to a certain point. Of course, the Starbucks v Colombia coffee showdown goes deeper than that. As illustrated by my use of the fair trade movement above, the lustre has fallen off the Colombian coffee brand considerably in recent years. As the mantle of “premium supplier” has fallen not to a country or bean classification but in the case of shade-grown, a method of growing or, in the case of fair trade an entire market system.
Starbucks uses all of the above to drive marketing and branding efforts or even, somewhat cynically, to nudge up price points and margins. But that still doesn't explain how the use of “Starbucks Coffee” in my above example came to be - and for that, I'd like to use some good old fashioned speculation. “Starbucks Coffee” was used not as a designation of quality, but rather as a deliniation of class. If they had said “we're going to get coffee”, a probable reply would be “where are you going?” The reasons behind such a question could be as varied as the person asking is looking for a espresso-based drink or they know a good place nearby. But saying “Starbucks” eliminates the need for that exchange. In other words, at the very least, we know what we're getting.
[ Ajouter un commentaire ]
[ Aucun commentaire ]
# Posté le mercredi 26 novembre 2008 08:46
Modifié le jeudi 30 avril 2009 16:24
- Annonceurs •
- Jobs •
- Contact •
- Aide •
- Sécurité •
- Conditions •
- Signaler un abus •
- Blog Skyrock