mendax.org

When news exploded about Starbucks shutting down 600 stores in the near future, we weren’t particularly surprised. That’s because since our patronage of Starbucks some five years ago, we’ve seen a general lack of consistency in the brand. Even in the same city, albeit the considerable city of San Francisco, consistency among Starbucks stores has lacked to the point where group outings for coffee once prompted discussion about which store to go to if we wanted the best atmosphere, versus the best drink.

When all Starbucks stores were closed a couple months back for the staff to be retrained, it made sense, since employees at different stores did things differently. For example, in some stores, a “zebra” mocha will be stirred with a spoon when it’s made, while in other stores, the unmixed concoction will be served as-is. Even the water used in the mocha mixture differs from store to store, and while some stores make their mixture fresh every morning, other stores complete the mixture in bulk, and then save it for days.

The differences mentioned above make the drinks taste different, and that’s poor form for a company whose widespread footprint across the nation implies consistency. This consistency is what we consumers expect to find in a store with the same name and decorating as the one across town, the State, the country, or even the world. When that consistency fails, consumers may as well go to a competing brand, especially one that does manage consistency better than Starbucks.

Then there’s the issue of potency, which is one of the chief reasons for running out to get coffee in the first place. Perhaps its the fact that we’re used to coffee in general, but on days where we’ve had coffee consecutively, Starbucks doesn’t offer the pick-me-up they used to, while competing brands like Peets simply offer a product with a higher caffeine content. In other words, for the same $3.50, we can get a stronger drink at Peets, and one whose taste we can expect, whereas at ye olde Starbucks, we’re over-charged for an espresso that’s weaker and possibly strange to our once-Starbucks-attuned taste-buds.

During a recent interview clip from NPR, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz was correct in blaming Starbucks’ poor financial performance on the company itself, rather than on its competition. In other words, it’s not the competition that’s getting a leg up on Starbucks, but rather Starbucks putting a leg down out of hubris. Of course, as many have pointed out, the closing of 600 stores isn’t entirely significant when one realizes that there are around 10,000 Starbucks stores in the United States, and in many cities, not a problem to find multiple Starbucks stores within a block of one another.

Nonetheless, hopefully the closing of 600 stores will finally bring to the company’s attention the real problems, and bring back the consistency and buzz that its consumers want.

Popularity: 4% [?]