follow me on Twitter


    From the Gaping Void

    Food for thought

    « Fresh Meet 2 | Main | Accidental branding »

    February 26, 2008


    Rob @ Cynic

    Of course it's a marketing ploy [unless they are using that 3 hours to also re-educate/inform their staff of the new Starbucks 'way' - which would be be good - though the fact it only takes 3 hours is abit worrying] however who cares, it's a statement of intent and for a US mainstream company to take a stand like that, I will happily drink a Low Far Latte in their honour!

    Eric Karjaluoto

    Hi Gareth,

    Interesting, we had a post about just this situation last summer on ideasonideas. (But I think some people thought we were bonkers to question Starbucks' brand.)



    Charles Frith

    It would make more sense if they piloted the effort first to assess for efficacy. Then market the hell out of it should it work.

    Just my tuppence :)


    Starbucks are up shit creek and are indeed trying to re-educate their staff as if they blame the staff for their recent failings.

    At the same time they making staff work longer hours (in the UK at least). So for example a 'barista' could finish at 10:00pm one evening and be in at 4:30am the next day.

    Pathetic. I feel sorry for the staff.


    I agree with Mr. Frith > market the hell if it worked but...I'm pretty sure the conversation died less than 48 hours later. I'd like to think there was a lot of "planning" involved. :p

    But I'm not sure if the ROI was what they had projected, maybe so. I should go into a Starbucks and talk to one of the partners, see how they feel. Maybe it was more of an internal push than an external one.

    Congrats on the baby!

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    Age of Conversation

    Traffic by

    Blog powered by Typepad

    All the views

    • expressed on this blog are those of their author alone.

    Battle of The Ad Blogs 2006