The Brandcast

This week, Howard Shultz, Starbucks Chairman, sent a strongly worded email to management of the chain cautioning that some of the moves designed to allow the chain to grow and become more efficient were moving the brand further away from it’s core experience and uniqueness.

Shultz, wisely I think, recognizes that certain new efficiencies such as a more automated brewing process, the sale of non-core goods like mints and CDs and the advent of drive-in windows have led Starbuck’s to become perhaps less “Starbucky” and more commodity.

All of these moves, are necessary and make sense in terms of driving double digit growth and profit. But - and here’s the risk that Mr. Shultz seems to understand - growth and size almost inevitably lead to uniqueness moving toward commodity. The very quirky things that make your brand - a brand, tend to dissolve over time.

On the other side of the marketing world, a group of us had the privilege of attending the Global Pet Expo this past week. The trade show is filled with passionate “pet entrepreneurs” with unique product, packaging, a strong sense of mission. Unfortunately, most of them are so busy chasing revenue and distribution that they will never get the opportunity to worry about this particular dilemma.

This raises a question for me that I think I already know the answer to. Do brands inevitably move away from their center or essence as they grow? Are true uniqueness and a strong brand essence forced to degrade as you move to get bigger? Do rugged western Levi’s inevitably become Wrinkle-free Dockers?

I believe the answer is yes - inevitably. A true sense of mission is replaced by lucite “Mission Statements” on desks and meetings with agencies on “authenticity messaging”.

Companies like Starbucks and Apple may be better at slowing this process down. The question then becomes if this is inevitable, what steps allow a company to slow down the process and stay unique a little while longer. I would suggest the following:

• Closeness of the original visionary or founder to the company and it’s decision making process.
• Less focus on capturing “market share” and more focus on simple growth.
• A corporate culture that is at least equally marketing focused as it is financially driven.
• Resistance to product or label proliferation, which is always the easiest way to drive revenue on paper.
• An inate understanding that “the little things” really make the brand.

This last one is especially critical because it’s so rare. What Shultz was trying to communicate in his memo was that Starbucks isn’t really about coffee - it’s the cups, the smells, the personal touches by the associates, the lack of a “sandwich menu” - the total environment. Little things make for truly tight brands. Little things are usually the first pieces to get lost.

All in all, Starbucks is lucky to have someone like Shultz still worrying about the little things. You don’t grow from two stores to twelve thousand so seamlessly without paying attention to those little details. And brand becomes commodity when you don’t.