An Ad Age article today points out the obvious: Starbucks has squandered its brand. Duh!
I think it's a great thing, because it proves what they teach everyone in Marketing 101, that if you overextend your brand, you'll start to lose it. It's hard to tell when, exactly, Starbucks overextended - was it the coffee on airplanes? or maybe in supermarkets? or maybe the corner outlet in WalMart? Or all of the above?
And that's just the coffee! Have you ever tried their food? How hard can it possibly be to make a decent sandwich for $7? Or a scone for $2? The food in Starbucks reminds me of the lunch food in London, only Starbucks is usually worse.
So, if you don't go there for the coffee (trust me, it's miserable - the espresso itself is usually burned, and the milk is always burned) and the food is only more miserable, why go there? Because you need a place to sit for a few minutes, and your only alternative is McDonalds - and McD's smells like fries, just like AdAge says.
The "fast casual" segment of the food industry is exploding right now. If Starbucks doesn't get its act together another company with a decent-smelling product (coffee, tea, or bread - once carbs are back in favor) is going to eat its lunch by providing comfortable seating and a nice atmosphere. And maybe free WiFi. Because that's all Starbucks ever did - except they branded it and packaged it nicely, and charged $10/day for internet. Now that their fundamental product sucks (not that it was ever very good) they will hit a rough patch. Because it doesn't matter how much the steak sizzles if it's stringy and overcooked.
