Lessons from Starbucks and its “Race Together” Campaign

If there’s ever been a doubt that things are moving faster all the time, just look to Starbucks’ recent “Race Together” in-store campaign that died barely a week after being launched. The campaign was aimed at creating opportunities for customers and employees to have dialogues about race. Baristas were to write “Race Together” on customers’ cups and serve up discussions about race relations. In support of this effort the company also ran full-page ads in USA Today and The New York Times with such slogans as “Race Together” and “Shall We Overcome” over a black background.

Critics have claimed that the company was simply using recent racial tension to sell coffee. Employees indicated that they were ill-prepared for the effort and the process of creating customer drinks and preparing food doesn't really allow for in-depth conversation.

Despite ceasing the in-store efforts, Starbucks has indicated that it has no plans to stop other parts of the initiative, including forums on the topic and hiring of thousands of employees from diverse backgrounds to staff new store openings in disadvantaged areas.

The topic of race in America is and will continue to be an important one for our society. We need to have more conversations about it at the societal, community, and family levels. Our insatiable 24-hour news cycle is sadly never without fresh content on race-related tragedies: Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, John Crawford, 12-year old Tamir Rice, Martese Johnson… sadly, I can go on. Race is a real issue in America and through open conversations we can make progress. The question is not should we be discussing race but instead where and with whom should we have those conversations?

I truly believe that the intent of Starbucks was to do good: to apply some of its corporate muscle to an important topic that maters to it, its employees, and its customers. But let there be no doubt, it was a marketing campaign.

We can all agree that Starbucks is a brilliant marketing organization. Any company that can convince the world to use the word “tall” when ordering a small drink earns my marketing respect. It co-creates with its customers (My Starbucks Idea) better than most and allows for rapid innovation from within its ranks (Seahawks Frappuccino). Despite its track record of innovation, experimentation, and success, Starbucks is like any other brand in the most important of ways- it can make mistakes.

Aside from the critics’ charges of emotional opportunism and employees’ concerns about preparedness and process, the issue with Starbucks’ campaign is that it demonstrates a significant lack of understanding regarding its brand’s dimensions and extensionality. Customers don’t look to talk about race with the people who make their coffee and tea beverages. It’s that simple.

If your Starbucks is like any of the four or five that I frequent, they all have a warm feeling. Some cozy seating amongst the wood tables and chairs, nice background music, friendly employees that are a little edgy but still very kind and invitingly approachable. I often see friends, neighbors, and colleagues there. I meet people there to catch up and visit or to discuss projects I’m involved in. I have a sense of community when I’m there and despite where my travels may take me that feeling extends to whichever Starbucks I walk into.

But you’ll notice that I referenced the people that I meet and see- they are the driver of that community feeling. Not the color palate or seemingly universal store layout. Not the beverage I am purchasing. Not the ever-changing staff behind the counter with whom I enjoy making small talk. These are important elements that enable my feeling of community but they are not actually part of that community. Outside of ordering and making my coffee, and the occasional chat about the weather or our local college sports teams, we do not have a relationship.

However Starbucks lost sight of that. The company’s view must have been that it had the approval of its customers to have their “baristas,” an already rushed and taxed revolving pool of hourly employees, engage with them about one of the most critical, sensitive, and meaningful topics we as Americans can have—race. We are just not that close.

In 2003, Volkswagen, the company known for small, inexpensive cars, introduced the Phaeton, a luxury sedan that competed against BMW and Mercedes Benz. The Phaeton had a starting price of around $70,000 and a top-of-the-line 12-cylinder model that exceeded $100,000. How did it perform? VW ceased offering the model within two years after a paltry 3,700 units sold.

At the turn of the century, my employer at the time, Netflix, introduced a site feature that displayed current movie theater showings and times in the subscriber’s region. Our data demonstrated that subscribers went to the movies more than two times the national average and since we wanted to meet their movie needs, they would of course value this convenient offering and remain a happy, paying subscriber. How did it do? Failed miserably. And within a short time period we removed the feature, never to return again.

What do Starbucks and the Phaeton and Netflix Movie Times have in common? They represent examples of companies that failed to fully understand their brand in the eyes of their customers or potential customers. VW thought it had the brand strength to move up market. It didn't. VW wasn't a high-end luxury brand. Netflix thought that since it rented DVDs by mail to subscribers they would appreciate it adding in features about movies in the theaters. They didn't. Netflix offered them a killer rental experience that had nothing to do with their theater going experience. And Starbucks thought that its brand enabled it to approach their largely anonymous customer base and engage, albeit at a surface level, in dialogue about a very personal and intimate topic.

It was wrong. And had it a deep understanding of its brand it wouldn't have created the campaign. It's not what you think of your brand that matters... its what your customers and prospects think that matters.