Yeah, I’m hearing a lot of positives about the product too. But I’m also hearing a lot of unprompted “what are they thinking?”

I still think they should have distanced themselves from the product – like one of those paper sleeves on a hot cup of coffee.

As a brand guy, I agree with your take.

But as a in-the-neighborhood guy, I’m surprised by the positive reactions I’ve heard from neighbors and others about the product, a couple of people remarking that it’s something they could serve at home for visitors. Makes me wonder if this is consistent with their research, thus giving Starbucks hope that they have a VIA-ble product. (I waited several sentences for that pun.)

In my store, they compared Via alongside Starbucks’ bland Pike Place Blend, which was a clever move as the Via did taste smoother. I didn’t find Via to taste any better than Taster’s Choice, another instant coffee with decent coffee flavoring.

Still, it would be surprising if people did “replace your office coffee” with Via: The cost for two 8 oz. cups of instant is a few nickels more than the equivalent, freshly brewed Grande cup of drip coffee. May as well buy a fresh cup in the morning and reheat it later — it still will be better than the office pot left on the burner all morning.

1) GOOD IDEA: having an entry into the “premium” end of the instant coffee market. I think Nescafe / Taster’s Choice have been struggling to define this market in North America over the last few years, so I think Starbucks – who was untainted by the “Instant” coffee stigma thus far – has a strong business opportunity and is wise to exploit it.

2) GOOD IDEA: Use this new product as a way to get people into your stores and re-introduce Starbucks as an innovative purveyor of high-value, high-touch coffee products.

But here’s the rub:

3) BAD IDEA: branding it as a Starbucks product. This is “lose” number 1 to me. “A Starbucks” is not just a cup of coffee; it’s an experiece, a feeling, and a social marker.

4) BAD IDEA: messaging that this tastes even remotely as good as Starbucks coffee (even if it were true – which it isn’t).

I could go on at length about what I would have recommended (and I started to before I realized how long the post was already) but in brief: I think they should have a) launched this product as a new non-Starbucks house brand, with Starbucks as a silent endorser, b) given it a name that would serve as a category-defining name for super-premium instant coffee (“Ready-Brew” ain’t that), and c) run the taste tests against other instant coffees in a true Pepsi Taste Test way.

I also would play with the idea of setting up a brand label for “Starbucks Kitchens” or “Starbucks Labs” or “Inspired by Starbucks” (which is what they’re using on their new “local” coffee-houses.

Via isn’t going for the same market as regular Starbucks Coffee. It’s tapping into the more than 20 billion dollars a year spent on instant coffee. A market that the company currently plays no part in. Even a small percent of this market means new dollars for Starbucks.

As you mentioned above, consumers likely won’t consider Via an alternative to going into a Starbucks. (“No not coffee-maker coffee, let’s go out for real coffee.”) Instead the new product opens the range of experiences in which a customer can interact with the Starbucks brand.

As far as stopping into the store for the taste challenge: It (a) got people into the store, and (b) got them into a hands-on VIA experience with a knowledgeable sales rep. Something any start up brand should be aiming for!

My bet is that Starbucks largest challenge won’t be a civil-war over of their own products, but getting consumers over the ‘yuck’ factor they use to pre-judge instant coffee.

The verdict is… Not great. Not disastrously bad either, but watery and limp. It in no way approaches a cup of real, freshly brewed coffee.

Sorry Big Bucks. Not winning this one.