![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldExtraordinary Observation's Rob Pitingolo comes to an interesting conclusion about what Starbucks coffee and light beers have in common: they're not good enough to command any amount of brand loyalty when times are tough, even when macroeconomic trends suggest that they should be doing well.
I drink Starbucks coffee mainly because it's the coffee most readily available to me in certain environments, and buy cheaper coffee whenever I can. The gap between its coffeehouse interiors and its university department-office-coffee reality hasn't left me with any positive illusions towards the chain.
It wouldn't matter to me if Starbucks' wifi became free, not least since I've had the good luck to associate a coffee shop with wifi as being original and non-derivative by definition. At the intersection of Bloor Street West with Brunswick, just west of Bathurst Street, in the Annex, three of the four corners have coffee shops: Second Cup, a Canadian chain, on the southeast corner; Starbucks, on the northeast; Aroma, a new Israeli-based chain, on the northwest. All three coffee shops offer wifi. Guess which one stands out for me? Guess which one I've boosted to as many of my friends as I've been able to?
What both of these situations have in common is that the products are broken. Starbucks coffee is not good; light beer is not good. Yes, many people do and will continue to buy both of these things, but just enough people have stopped buying them that the balance is being tipped in the opposite direction. So even if you write these people off as snobs who are being haughty, losing them as customers is really hurting these businesses.
The other aspect that both of these situations have in common is that the brands are attempting to remedy declining sales with marketing and PR that don't address the root problem. Light beer commercials have never really had anything to do with beer, but these days they seem particularly pointless. Free wifi at Starbucks locations is something the company should have done long ago, but it does nothing to address the quality of the coffee.
I kind of like Eric Felten's suggestion. Wouldn't it be something if these brands pulled a Domino's Pizza and admitted that the quality of the product has suffered, but that they are committed to fixing that? It won't happen though. At least not by a long shot.
I drink Starbucks coffee mainly because it's the coffee most readily available to me in certain environments, and buy cheaper coffee whenever I can. The gap between its coffeehouse interiors and its university department-office-coffee reality hasn't left me with any positive illusions towards the chain.
It wouldn't matter to me if Starbucks' wifi became free, not least since I've had the good luck to associate a coffee shop with wifi as being original and non-derivative by definition. At the intersection of Bloor Street West with Brunswick, just west of Bathurst Street, in the Annex, three of the four corners have coffee shops: Second Cup, a Canadian chain, on the southeast corner; Starbucks, on the northeast; Aroma, a new Israeli-based chain, on the northwest. All three coffee shops offer wifi. Guess which one stands out for me? Guess which one I've boosted to as many of my friends as I've been able to?
