• About you
  • DenVan on Social
  • Brandvelope.com
  • DenVan.ca
  • Favourite posts

Beg to Differ

A brand strategy blog - by DenVan

You are here: Home / Home

Starbucks: beer, bands, & baristas

July 20, 2009 // Dennis Van Staalduinen 7 Comments

Coffee giant tries to get mojo vibrating again

Once, order Starbucks was just a local coffee shop in Seattle. Then it became a mega-brand, sildenafil standard-bearer for the premium coffee category worldwide. But lately, more about the “star” has been fading, and even the “bucks” are drying up. So now the chain will be re-launching a few of its many under-performing stores under a new name – and it ain’t “Starbucks”. Brand seppuka, brilliant extension strategy, or just a curious experiment?

Photo from Seattle Times article - 15th Avenue Coffee & Teas (nee Starbucks)
Photo from Seattle Times article - 15th Avenue Coffee & Teas (nee Starbucks)

Many little rocks; one Goliath target

I won’t spend a lot of time documenting all the many woes of Starbucks – from closing 1000 stores worldwide over the last few years, to endless streams of controversy , to an actual bombing this year at a Manhattan Store. The bigger story is actually thousands of small stories: how Starbucks is being beaten in the ground wars by smaller, more flexible, more community-minded local shops – like Ottawa’s fair trade coffee champs Bridgehead (of whom I’ve written at length in another post).

Starbucks’ erstwhile strength – ubiquitous presence in major markets worldwide – has almost become an Achilles Heel. Comedian Lewis Black thinks it is surely a sign of the end of the world (WARNING: contains hilarity – may not want to play this in a cubicle):

Starbucks responds

They’ve been fighting back of course, with their new “Starbucks™ Shared Planet™”  brand and a pledge to apply renewed attention to three big perceived areas of weakness:

Starbucks - ethical - environmental - community

  • Ethical sourcing – to answer the Fair Trade movement, which, because of their size and massive bean-supply-chains, they have been slow to embrace. Notice they still don’t call it “Fair”;
  • Environmental Stewardship – to try to get back some of their tree-hugging mojo; and
  • Community Involvement – to fight the idea that they are the rapacious corporate villains strip-mining local economies and ruthlessly targeting competitors without giving much back – largely fair complaints.

In which the corporation offers to share… the planet

These three principles are embodied (and proclaimed loudly) in three new Starbuck’s branded “Green Stores” , the first of which opened July 1st at Paris Disneyland (of all places Press Release / Pictures)

At Brandvelope, of course we think all this is great. We’re sure Starbucks is sincere in their commitment to these ideals, and we applaud the incremental steps they are taking in this direction. The problem is their  ability  to move their Titanic-sized infrastructure to match their ocean-sized ambitions, and navigate around the great big pointy icebergs they face.

For example, Starbucks™ Shared Planet™ says “by 2015, we want to: Purchase 100% of coffee through ethical sourcing practices.” Great. But in the intervening 6 years, a goodly chunk of their coffee will come from, um, less-than-ethical sourcing practices, while local chains (like the Bridgehead where I’m sitting right now) are already at 100% and have been for years. And they’re already intensely environmental, and already deeply committed to their communities. So Starbucks: welcome to the club (let us know when you get here).

The problem with local

Which brings us to Starbucks’ latest uphill battel – its attempt to make itself more local, and more responsive to the communities in which it operates. Because, even on on its home turf in Seattle, where Starbucks still has some claim to being “local” – small coffeeshops are thriving and forcing Starbucks store closures.

So it shouldn’t be a surprise when a small army of field-tripping keeners were spotted at several Seattle area coffeeshops over the last few months, making loud observations about store design and product lines, and filing their notes in folders marked “Observations” in large letters. The results? Wait for it…

The new brand: “15th Avenue Coffee & Tea”

Branded by location: “15th Avenue”. That’s the name of the new game-changing Starbucks location on (surprise!) 15th Avenue in Seattle.

So does this mean a “15th Avenue” will be coming to a neighbourhood near you. Nope. Yours would be “Main Street Coffee & Tea” or “Broadway” or “Grosse Pointe Strip Mall” or “All-Knowing Supreme Leader Boulevard” or whatever. The idea would be to have each location branded with its location to make it seem like it grew organically in that space.

Two other stores in Starbucks’ native Seattle will follow suit, each getting its own name to make it sound more like a neighborhood hangout, less like Big Coffee, a Starbucks official told The Seattle Times on Thursday. Chicago Tribune.

Booze & guitars: The field-trippers focused on coffeeshops that serve alcohol alongside their hot drinks, as well as those that feature live events like poetry readings and guitar-jams. So nosurprise that these will be part of the cocktail mix at the new shops. The idea is 1) to prop up sales in the traditionally flat evening hours, 2) tap into lucrative alcohol profit margins, and 3) to make Perez Hilton very very happy.

No logo: all the media I’ve read are saying that no Starbucks logos will appear on the signage, the products, or anywhere else in the store. I can’t confirm this, so if any Seattle-based readers can visit and confirm, please do!).

But if this is a purely “white label” approach to branding these new locations, I’m interested to see how Starbucks is going to evolve this concept as they go forward. For now, the perceived independence of the locations is a useful way to allow the clipboard-toters at Starbucks to experiment and study the new format without dilluting the corporate brand.

Coffee industry analyst Andrew Hetzel: “It looks to me that they are testing a specialty sub-brand to see if they can capture some other segment of the market that would otherwise be disillusioned by a large corporate chain,” Hetzel said, adding that opening only one at first “gives them a live shop to test changes in menu offerings, store design and, perhaps, procedures quickly” without disrupting operating stores branded with the Starbucks name. Whole
article here
.

Where to from here?

But this can’t last forever. Assuming the format works and Starbucks wants to roll it out to different markets, eventually, they’ll see the need to create visible connections (and brand equity) between locations. Because creating a series of purely local brands with no overall brand marketing synnergies across the chain would be counter-productive for a company of Starbucks size and clout. And I find it hard to believe they’d be that stupid.

AdAge article: Technomic President Ron Paul… predicts the concept will look much different if rolled out on a national stage. “I still think it’s more a of test lab than something they’re more serious about rolling out,” he said. “That’s not a national strategy.” Full article here.  

So three basic brand strategy options:

1) New “family” brand:

Starbucks name would not appear in branding. Instead, the new shops would be given their own umbrella brand which would operate as a stand-alone “entity” within the broader corporate portfolio. So for example, the new branches could use a high-character name like “Mermaid Cafe” or a more neutral name like the “Your Independent Grocer” chain in Canada.

Advantage: diversifies the Starbucks portfolio without risk of brand dillution or confusion around over-extension.
Disadvantage:
little transfer of brand equity – must essentially start from scratch building a new brand.

2) Premium brand extension:

This new format becomes a flavour of the existing Starbucks brand, but is given a descriptor or “soft brand” name of its own – like Starbucks Plus or Starbucks Cofeehouse.

Advantage: Leverages 30+ years of brand equity, but
Disadvantage: seriously undermines the consumer’s current idea of what a Starbucks is and what they can expect when they walk through the door.

3) Endorsed brand:

The new brand has its own brand identity and branches would clearly not be “Starbucks” but everywhere the name appeared in graphics or formal text (like a Press Release), it would be “endorsed” by the Starbucks brand – as in “Courtyard by Marriot” or “Clever Cutter from K-Tel“.

Advantage: blends clear connection with separate identity.
Disadvantage: requires careful management to balance the two aspects of the brand.

So which way do you think Starbucks should go? Your thoughts are welcome as always.

Filed Under: Analysis & review, Brand Names, Brand Value, Consumer Behaviour, Consumer product brands, Innovation, Rebranding, Retail Brands Tagged With: 15th Avenue Coffee and Tea, beg to differ, begtodiffer, brand architecture, brand management, brand strategy private label, differentiation, no logo, positioning, rebrand, retail, Seattle, Starbucks coffee, unbranded

Shop local: is it better to brand from the inside?

July 14, 2009 // Dennis Van Staalduinen Leave a Comment

A recent Twitter friend of mine, ask David Olinger, who is the Manager of Marketing and Communications at the small Alberta City of Grande Prairie (population 50,000) has just announced the winning bidder for a branding project for Grande Prairie: a company from Seattle that specializes in tourism destination branding Great Destination Strategies . Was there great rejoicing in Grande Prairie? Um. Not exactly.

Grande Prairie 2

The response:

This was the grumpy and YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard) response to the project from the editor of the local newspaper The Daily Herald Tribune:

FULL EDITORIAL HERE: Shop local doesn’t always apply to city

A few quotes to give you the gist:

The old saying, “a picture is worth a thousand words” can sometimes be even more important when it comes to picking just one image that is supposed to identify an entire community. Such is the challenge the City of Grande Prairie finds itself in right now as it embarks on a new “branding” campaign.

So with such a sensitive job one would think it would be important to consult with people from this region, lifelong residents and newcomers alike. But instead, Grande Prairie’s brand will be made in the U.S.A. in some Seattle offices 1,304 km away.

Will an American company know who Alexander Forbes was? Will they know what the Stompede is? … Will they know how to spell Muskoseepi without having to look it up everyday?

The Muskoseepi dilemma

Now, without knowing anything about the company in question or very much about Grande Prairie (I thought it was in South-Eastern Alberta, not North-Western), and certainly having no clue what a “Muskoseepi” is (?) this debate raises an interesting question for brand managers everywhere:

Is branding better done by insiders (people who live, breathe, and bleed the brand every day), or by outsiders (people who come in “cold” and learn about the brand)?

I’ll let you think about that for a moment.
[pause, soft music plays]

The answer:

My own take on this: neither one. You need both insiders and outsiders for a great branding campaign to succeed.

The insiders:

The process and outcome have to be driven and owned by insiders – and particularly by leaders with enough 1) power (and courage) to make the big changes that a whole-brand approach will require, and 2) humility to truly listen to the voices of outsiders (by which I mean customers). If the insiders abdicate this responsibility, the brand will be defined by outsiders, and not necessarily with the best intentions or proper perspective.

The outsiders:

Because a brand is a promise that is actually owned by its customers, successful branding can’t ever be an internal exercise only. Otherwise it’s just an exercise at best (like an orchestra rehearsing without an audience), a time-wasting navel-gazing as middle ground (executive retreat anyone?), or at worst, a spectacular public blunder (like Pizza The Hut or last week’s Syfy debacle).

That’s not to say you need to hire an expensive American firm to do your work for you. A sensibly priced Canadian firm would be better, but even that isn’t strictly necessary. This role could be played by your Board of Directors or a panel of advisors, or if you have a really active customer base, include some real customers in the process.

The most important things are 1) to make sure somebody at the table is speaking for the customers. That is, they give themselves permission to challenge you, ask “dumb outsider” questions, and maybe even tell you that your customers don’t care about things you hold very dear (e.g. Is the “Stompede” really that important? Really?), and 2) to make sure somebody on the “insider” side of the table is listening.

Bon Courage Grande Prairie!

Filed Under: Analysis & review, Brand Value, Message & Positioning, Place Brands, Tag Lines Tagged With: alberta, Canada, city branding, grande prairie, insiders, local branding, outsourcing, Place brand, tag line, value

Brand brief: SciFi rebranding – stranger than fiction?

July 7, 2009 // Dennis Van Staalduinen 3 Comments

So as I write this, illness the newly re-christened SciFi Channel is ringing the bell at the NASDAQ to celebrate their name change to “Syfy” (Siffy?)  and the Twitter hash tag #syfy is alive with unanimous pans of the new name: “Worst. Re-branding. Ever.”  That might be a stretch, mind but so is the new name.

Screen captures from http://www.syfy.com/imaginegreater/. A distorted disorienting funhouse with no discernible direction or exit. Welcome to "Siffy".
Screen captures from http://www.syfy.com/imaginegreater/. A distorted disorienting funhouse with no discernable direction or exit. Welcome to "Siffy".

Wired magazine notes media reaction to the “reboot”:

Variety, page noting the fan outrage and commenting on the trend of cable channels renaming themselves in search of wider audiences, said NBC Universal had tripped the light gooftastic. “Syfy … opens up new possibilities for confusion,” the trade publication wrote. “If the network is trying to expand beyond science-fiction programming, why go with a new name that’s still pronounced ‘Sci Fi,’ but with a goofy spelling?”

My take:

Captain, I’m a brander not a Cable programmer, but they’re trying to have it both ways here. They’re trying to 1) preserve brand equity by pretending that the word will be pronounced the same way, while 2) leaving themselves open to the possibility of expanding to non-science fiction programming, and 3) building a distinctive protectable trademark in the package.

All of which sounds great on paper but to ordinary earthlings, it seems like a big stretch. Which is the trade-off when you choose a plain-language descriptive name like “SciFi” in the first place. Instant category recognition, but you have to live with (and respect) the expectations you create.

Or maybe I’m wrong. Maybe this weekend’s Cisco Ottawa Bluesfest should rebrand as “Blewsfest” now that KISS, Styx, and Ice Cube are all on the same bill. Note to Bluesfest: gimme a call, ‘kay?

A quick word on the tag line:

Oh, and when you put the “Siffy” name together with the mostly opaque and totally illiterate tagline “Imagine Greater” one wonders if the marketing team has been abducted by aliens (and not by the smart ones).

Filed Under: Brand Brief, Brand Names, Brand Value, Branding Mistakes, Logo, Media Brands, Rebranding Tagged With: Branding Mistakes, cable channel brand, Cisco Ottawa Bluesfest, critique, Rebranding, Science Fiction channel, SciFi, SyFy

I’m so mad at Switzerland!

June 29, 2009 // Dennis Van Staalduinen 3 Comments

A Rant about Canadian Brands for Canada Day 2009

So you ask: “Mad at Switzerland? What could anyone possibly have against the Swiss” – those lovely Alp-ine purveyors of Rolex watches, visit this Nestle chocolate, and fastidiously discreet banking services? Sorry Switzerland. It’s not about you. It’s about you beating the pants off Canada in the global branding arena.

And to be fair, in the rant video attached you’ll note that I have equal opportunity anger issues against Sweden, Finland, and even my own ancestral homeland the Netherlands. And as you’ll see, it’s all because of their brands. Each of these countries punches far above their weight in the contest for the global brand belt. As you’ll see in the stats below, these countries even beat the heavyweight in the ring – the USA – when you take their population into account.

Global 100 chart

So why the anger?

Okay, I’m a Canadian. I’m not actually angry per se: just hurt, frustrated, envious, mildly apologetic, etc.

Actually, I want Canadian brand managers to stand up and take notice. We need to get more internationally respected / recognized brands. In this deck on SlideShare, you’ll find some supporting data (from Interbrand / Business Week) and my challenge to Canadian Brand Managers.

Go Canada!

Why I’m Mad At Switzerland – Rant about Canadian Brands for July 2009
View more documents from Dennis Van staalduinen.

What Canadian brands are Global candidates?

Fortunately, the good folks at Interbrand also published a helpful guide in 2008 for that as well.

Interbrand report on Canadian Brands.

The top ten

  1. Blackberry
  2. RBC
  3. TD Canada Trust
  4. Shopper’s Drug Mart
  5. Petro Canada
  6. Manulife
  7. Bell
  8. Scotiabank
  9. Canadian Tire
  10. Tim Horton’s

Filed Under: Analysis & review, Brand Value, Branding Advice, Contains Video, Innovation, Message & Positioning, Place Brands, Positioning Tagged With: Blackberry, brand equity, brand management, brand vs brand, Canada, differentiation, Dutch, Finland, Holland, Interbrand, Netherlands, Sweden, Thompson Reuters

A new brand for word geeks – it’s Wordnik.com

June 23, 2009 // Dennis Van Staalduinen Leave a Comment

It’s very seldom I come across a new tool on the Web that jumps straight to the top of my bookmark lists, discount but it happened this morning. I got a tip from Charles Hodgson’s latest post on podicitonary.com on a funky new site called Wordnik.com that had my fast-twitch bookmarking reflexes firing almost instantly. wordnik

How does it DIFFER?

What’s so impressive, drug and how is it better than – or at least different from – any of the excellent reference tools out there? UrbanDictionary.com for example has become an indispensible reference for new slang and jargon. Don’t know what a “beauty booger” is? You’re in luck!

But in particular, how does wordnik compare to the granddaddy of them all: Dictionary.com? I have to admit that as a long-time word nerd (Scrabble, reading the OED for fun, the whole works) and professional brand namer, I’m a big fan of Dictionary.com. It has evolved over the past few years from providing a single set of standard dictionary definitions to providing a huge laundry list of definitions from a cross section different dictionaries, including specialized financial and medical searches, as well as etymology, suggested related searches, and cross references to encyclopedia and thesauri.

Oh and advertising. Loads and loads of advertising. Just scroll down through this definition of the word “brand” to see how exhaustive and exhausting this approach can become. So what could be missing? Well, the simplicity and focus of the early days for one. But more importantly, with this “stream of noise” approach, what gets lost is context – a sense of how the word works in the real world.

That’s where Wordnik comes in.

Screenshot of the wordnik results I got for the word "brand"
Screenshot of the wordnik results I got for the word "brand"

Check out this search on the word “brand” and compare it to the Dictionary.com approach. The first thing you’ll notice is the clean layout, with everything in clearly marked containers. You’ll also see that the first item is not the definition, but examples of the word in the context of an actual sentence. And quite often from unconventional sources like Twitter.

Wordnik claims to have a growing database of more than 130 million examples to go with its 1.7 million words. This actually gets closer to one intent of the first, and still one of the easiest to read dictionaries, Samuel Johnson’s 1755 A Dictionary of the English Language which promises: “a faithful record of the language people used”.

Check out the Wordnik approach to the phrase “beauty booger” – which doesn’t have a formal definition, and which sends Dictionary.com into a fishtail. But which Wordnik allows you to piece together from Twitter usage.

Or try Wordnik for the word fishtail. You’ll see that they also search Flickr tags, and a quick scan shows me that the term “fishtail” can refer to a kind of braided ponytail, something motorcycle-related, and the name of a peak in Nepal – none of which appear at Dictionary.com.

Where Wordnik needs work.

Okay, it ain’t perfect. That’s why they’ve stamped “Beta” all over it – or as they put it in their welcome e-mail “Because we are still in beta, there are almost certainly hiccups and other infelicities.”  In particular, the dictionary definitions themselve quite often fall flat in capturing the whole range of senses for a word.

For example, when you search “branding” the only definition that comes up is “the act of stigmatizing” – which totally misses the sense of the term that I’ve built my business on. On the plus side, there is a bit of Wiki-ness to the Wordnik site, so even if I wasn’t able to add a definition myself, I was able to submit the following comment:

What’s missing here is the modern business sense of branding, which I define as “the process of organizing a company’s products, messages, and corporate identity to help consumers understand who they are and what they do.”

Will this help? Hard to say. It will depend on whether a real human on the other side sees it and does soemthing about it (which is going to be a lot harder when more than 23 people have looked up the word). I’d love to see an open wiki environment moderated by fellow wordgeeks, but that requires a critical mass of users to filter out the type of self-serving editing that I’d love to do on the “branding” entry.

A quick word on the name and logo

Very quick actually: great. Nicely understated on both. It will be interesting to see if the noun-weighted name ever becomes a verb like “Google” – as in ” Wait a moment while I Wordnik that”. Or to use the Twitter / Tweet model: “let me Wordneek that.” Or perhaps I overstretch my point (for the first time ever).

So to sum up: Wordnik is cool for word nerds, and very useful for us in our branding work. With some more tuning and opening the door to deeper user contributions, it could become a killer app for everyone else too.

Filed Under: Analysis & review, Brand Names, Innovation, Message & Positioning, Online brands, Social Media Tagged With: brand, dictionary, online, podictionary, reference, Wordnik

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • Next Page »

Copyright © 2022 · BG Endless on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in