Is branding evil?
I was asked this question the other day and it threw me for a moment. My immediate response was “No, of course not.” But I had to take a moment and wonder.
My answer was that there are two ways to look at branding. There’s the branding that’s created, molded, manipulated, and perpetuated by companies. They want people to perceive their business in a certain way, to be seen in a certain light. And then there’s the branding that’s created, molded, manipulated, and perpetuated by consumers. Company branding is what a business wants to be seen as. Consumer branding is what the company already looks like to the world.
More often than not, there is a disconnect.
Some companies look at this disconnect and align themselves with well-established public perception. Other companies try to force consumers to see them in a radically different way.
Let’s look at Starbucks. I did some research on what Starbucks lovers and haters attribute to the brand. What do we think of?
- Corporate
- Overpriced
- Trendy
- Omni-present
- Unethical
- International
- Portable
- Consistent
- Aesthetic
- Premium-taste
- Good service
The things people once loved about Starbucks are now the things people hate. I jest. But in response to their less-than-stellar brand equity, Starbucks is working on the idea of breaking down their corporate giant into thousands of smaller stores, named and branded according to their specific locations. In PHX, we might see a “44th Street Coffee & Tea” instead of a Starbucks. A redesigned store would be branded with its location to make it seem like it grew organically in that space, and it’s rumored that no Starbucks logos will appear on the signage, the products, or anywhere else in the store. Well… “inspired by Starbucks” might appear in teeny-tiny type underneath the store signs. In this article from Beg to Differ you can read about how this all came about.
I have to admit, I don’t understand how Starbucks thinks this is a great idea. At all. I understand that the corporate ogre that is “the ‘Bucks” feels the need to condescend to the level of home-grown, local stores, but they are doing it in a way that is exactly that… condescending. If you’re a corporate monolith, be that. Don’t try to deceive coffee-lovers and play games with their perception.
This is the kind of thing that makes me stop and think that maybe branding can be evil if it’s done with the wrong intention. I think I’ll stick with Mama Java’s and Fair Trade, at least they always tell me the truth.
NOTE: I don’t think that Starbucks itself is evil. I agree that Starbucks treats its employees well, is philanthropic, and is nearly fair trade. The question I pose is, is it right for a large corporation to rebrand itself as thousands of “local” stores to promote a false identity? In my opinion, Starbucks should remain branded as one large corporation.
Chris Maddox
Interesting thoughts. In my opinion you keyed in on the “evil” component of branding in your second to last paragraph. There is a difference in researching a target market to best communicate who you are vs. being deceitful about who you are to reach a target market. I think this generation is getting fed up with corporations who play this game, who brand themselves through lies. This is where I believe the evil reputation comes from. What does it look like for a company to embrace who they are…even when that is a huge corporation? Any good examples?
Nov 04, 2009 @ 2:43 PM
Jon Ashcroft
Good post as always friend. I do have to step in and defend Starbucks a bit though. Within certain groups Starbucks is definitely perceived as evil but I believe its mainly just because they are ultra successful and people tend to want to take down the man.
From what I understand (my wife is a former employee) Starbucks is a pretty solid company. They are one of the few to offer benefits to employees who work only part time, and that is huge! They reward long time employees really well (after X amount of years they get a 9 month sabbatical!). Not to mention they create a career path within the industry, ie shift manager, store manager, district manager, etc. I love little home grown coffee shops as much as the next person but you can bet there is no career path laid out in front of their employees.
And on the “unethical” front. From what I’m told Starbucks has very strict policy for who they do their dealings with and how much profits their suppliers receive. They are not completely fair trade certified but from what I understand they are very close. They also do cool stuff like offering specialty coffees that go towards benefiting certain causes or countries (they recently did something for Africa).
You’ve also got to love Starbucks because they take design very seriously. I love just wondering around their stores and checking out the newest seasonal signage and graphics that always seems to be on point and ahead of the curve.
The reason people hate Starbucks is because they are really good at what they do, to the point of being intimidating. This is an example of what I think a good brand should be. It should inspire an equal amount of love and hate. This indicates that they aren’t playing it safe and watering themselves down to the point that everyone is just “okay” with them.
Apple is another good example of this. They do what they want when they want and don’t give a damn about the naysayers. Because of this they will always be three steps ahead of the competition, who are constantly trying to please the masses.
Ha! I think i just made up for my lack of commenting on the last 5 posts!
Nov 04, 2009 @ 3:49 PM
Stephanie Horn
Chris, I think huge companies like Pfizer, Honeywell, Target, and Gap brand themselves well because they brand themselves honestly. They are big corporations and they present themselves as such. Currently, Starbucks is an honest brand, just like those previously mentioned, but I think if it spawns thousands of fake mini-brands to satisfy the indie movement, it will be a mockery of every real local store.
Nov 04, 2009 @ 5:10 PM
Stephanie Horn
Jon, Great to hear from you!
Good point. If companies like Starbucks weren’t making strides toward change, they would become stagnant and we would become bored — And nothing kills a brand like boredom. If they take this “mini-store” idea and run with it… it might turn out pretty sweet. Or it might turn into a huge mess of brand-confusion.
Same here. I love their product, signage, and store designs.
Nov 04, 2009 @ 5:16 PM
adam
although this is the first i have heard of it, i think what starbucks is doing (opening stores as “local”) is a really good move. i do not view it as deceitful at all, especially since they say on the sign that they are part of starbucks.
i have to wonder, though, if this is the whole story . . . maybe they are franchising out these new “local” shops, maybe they will get some ingredients locally (cream from, say a local dairy), obviously employing locals, and maybe they have a different menu that is more catered to that specific market. you say they are also designing each store to fit in its environment/location. this in itself makes it more of a local spot that the locals can make their own, not some generic, faceless corporation.
i think this shows they are listening to the “consumer branding” (as you call it) and adapting. this is part of the business model that has made them so “successful.”
starbucks has sought out some top-notch marketing/design folks and it really shows through examples like this. this was a great idea and one of those ideas i hate because i wish i had thought of and presented it! haha
Nov 05, 2009 @ 12:22 AM
Stephanie Horn
You’re right. I know there is more to the story, but Starbucks is keeping pretty tight-lipped about information related to their proposed restructuring. I like the way you think Adam! I would like to see these “local” shops focused on using local farmers and other services. I’d be really excited if they built them that way!
While it’s a clever business move, I’m mostly concerned with the idea of a corporation hijacking the purpose of homegrown cafes. But you’re right… they’re listening to what their customers want — a more personal and unique experience. Am I too limiting in my viewpoint? Maybe I should be more open to big businesses aggressively changing their branding and style. You’ve all given me a lot to think about.
Nov 05, 2009 @ 1:58 AM
adam
my comments were not meant to state an absolute or polarized opinion, i was just creating conversation. i see your point about subterfuge and being sneaky little weasels but i also understand what they are doing in relation to our line of work (not saying that you don’t).
Nov 05, 2009 @ 1:13 PM
Jake Schroeder
I always thought that people hated starbucks because it was yuppy-ish, and was way overpriced. Then, I thought a bit harder, I think it was that plus the fact where they try to seem arty/jazzy and hip, and when you see that replicated to the T, you feel duped. You almost feel like are having a “real” cafe experience the first time you enter one – as an American from the Southwest, of course.
I guess I see the same problem with these new local shops. They’re trying to do what Applebee’s does really: use their same boring corporate idea (once you figure it out), and trying to shed the aesthetic of that that we all have pegged now for some disingenuous hometown flare all over the walls. I wouldn’t call it evil, just lame.
Starbucks is good to their employees, and from I hear, hooks up part-timers with benefits, so they sound like a decent-enough company from my ignorant perspective. They’re just kinda lame – to knit-pickers of branding like us, I guess.
Nov 06, 2009 @ 11:51 PM
adam
contrary to popular belief, its not a bunch of non-design suits over at starbucks making these decisions about branding and such. they have had some really great design thinkers, brand managers, designers, etc in there.
i, for one, think it would be a cool in-house team to work for. at my previous in-house job, we actually modeled much of the way our creative services department worked and how we developed and sold our ideas to “the suits” after what stanley hainsworth had built over there. i am actually quite impressed how starbucks actually lets their designers and cd’s puch their image and shape their company. i think they should actually be commended for this. as a designer that has worked in-house for years, i understand how difficult and tricky it is to get the corporate heads to actually believe in design and follow through with it.
Nov 12, 2009 @ 11:02 AM