By Dominique Trempont, Guest Author
The success of Starbucks is outstanding. Howard Schultz recognized and understood what is a cafe in Europe: a safe place to meet, a place not be alone, an engaging staff, conversation, good drinks and simple food.
He designed the customer experience in detail, executed and scaled.
He came up with a value system that respected employees and paid decent health benefits to them; he made this know to clients who reacted by saying: “yes, that is right and I accept to pay a small premium for this coffee”.
Starbucks designed an interesting customer experience matrix from coffee beans to great service to positioning its brand as the 3rd place (after home and work) at a premium pricepoint:
– premier customized coffee drinks,
– indulgence treats,
– friendly and engaging service (Starbucks makes me feel important),
– well targeted advertising messages: indulge and escape,
– extended hours
– many many locations (convenient to home and work)
– accessible and predictable (in control of my time, more freedom to do what I want),
– comfortable seats,
– wireless internet, good music, space to work and socialize, comfortable and productive (Starbucks empowers me and extends my lifestyle).
Result? Hot brand. It has indeed become the 3rd place after home and work. In the US alone, Starbucks has in excess of 4500 outlets, or one store for every 61,000 people.
The irony is that the company was founded on the quality of the coffee: the coffee is no longer very good at Starbucks. Compare it to Peet’s coffee: that is a very good coffee with none of the gimmicks. On the other hand, Peet’s is ONLY excellent coffee and has chosen not to package the rest of the cafe experience.
By foregoing the end-to-end customer experience, Peets is a much less successful brand, while whatever little is wrong with Starbucks, is easily fixable.