Starbucks and Branding # Fail!
HOWARD SCHULTZ, the head of Starbucks, thinks the gourmet coffee chain has a responsibility to address America’s vexed race relations. After a series of internal meetings at the company, he decided to launch “Race Together”, a co-venture with USA Today, a newspaper, to “stimulate conversation, compassion and action around race in America.” “Race is an unorthodox and even uncomfortable topic for an annual meeting,” Mr Schultz conceded at the company’s annual gathering for shareholders on Wednesday. “Where others see costs, risks, excuses and hopelessness, we see and create pathways of opportunity—that is the role and responsibility of a for-profit, public company.”
Though seemingly well-intentioned, the campaign has elicited a backlash. Starbucks baristas, who were invited to write “#Racetogether” on coffee cups, responded with derisive tweets: “Being a barista is hard enough. Having to talk #RaceTogether with a woman in Lululemon pants while pouring pumpkin spice is just cruel.” Corey duBrowa, a senior vice president of global communications at Starbucks, received such a deluge of angry messages that he temporarily deleted his twitter account. Meanwhile, Mr Schultz turned to CNN and other venues to defend his initiative. Though he had fine news to report to shareholders on Wednesday, most of the day's discussion was devoted to controlling the damage of Race Together. Why did this campaign rub people the wrong way? And what does the incident signal about the ability of corporate brands to present themselves as socially conscious players in the public sphere?
Americans’ instinctive disdain for Race Together seems to be rooted in the sense that Starbucks was appropriating a serious social issue for its own economic gain. The company’s sudden concern for racial issues essentially seemed like a marketing gimmick. Indeed, brands tend to be rewarded when they align themselves with feel-good causes. Consumers are often grateful for a chance to feel self-righteous without having to do anything more than make a purchase. But for this to fly, the branding effort needs to seem authentic and not merely cynical or self-serving. TOMS Shoes, which sends a pair of shoes to an impoverished child for every pair a consumer buys, has pulled this off successfully (despite criticism from some economists). Dove’s “Real Beauty” campaign has, too.
But it makes sense for a popular body-wash brand with a significant female customer base to address body-image issues. Starbucks’ rather glib initiative of a “race conversation”, by contrast, feels far less organic and authentic. Part of this is a matter of practicality: how are people supposed to talk about race in a 30-second interaction with a stranger while picking up coffee to go? But the problem is also one of branding. Given the company’s predominantly white leadership—around 40% of baristas are racial minorities, but only three out of 19 Starbucks executives are people of colour—and fairly wealthy patrons, the conversation feels forced and awkward.
Starbucks has a record of treating employees better than most fast-food retail chains. Last summer the company made headlines with its offer to cover some tuition fees for staff who work at least 20 hours a week. But baristas still earn as little as $7.60 an hour. Many also complain of limited access to insurance, unreliable working hours and understaffed stores. Perhaps, then, it would be understandable if few seem terribly eager for a klatch about racism over a Frappuccino.
