NPR has a fascinating report on a Starbucks owned coffee shop which has completely ditched any association to the Starbucks franchise.

No human sized Starbucks logo on the windows. No logos on the coffee cups.

No mention of Starbucks whatsoever.

Just a Plain Jane, “15th Ave. Coffee & Tea” sign posing as the friendly neighborhood coffeeshop.

It’s like management completely forgot about the brand name they spent millions (billions?) to make a household name over the last two decades, only to decide they want to be the small town or neighborhood coffeeshop.

Or did they?

Why Would Anyone Do This?

I think it’s because Starbucks has become the poster child of a spendthrift, consumer nation.

Think about it.

How many times have you read an article on disposable income or saving money, and somewhere in that article, you were reminded that you’re paying $4 for an oversized, sugar filled beverage of questionable nutritional value.

The message has become so widespread that during the oil bubble of 2008, Starbucks was humorously tossed into the same equation as OPEC — the world’s most infamous cartel — and suddenly, $147 for a barrel of oil at its all time high didn’t seem so bad since it was still cheaper than a $4 latte on a per ounce (per liter) comparison.

Add in the basic fact that most Americans would rather spend what little disposable income they have in a Mom & Pop small business (that Starbucks helped to put out of business) instead of corporate behemoths like themselves, and you can easily justify why Starbucks would want to omit their corporate logo from this newest venture.

As the NPR article mentions, perhaps this is a pilot scale study on the success of de-branding the franchise and trying to assume a more neighborhood friendly, independently owned business image. The only problem, of course, is that image can easily be shattered once some anti-Starbucks customers aren’t taken in by their ruse.

Re-Branding a Once Successful Brand Name

Altering, or changing your brand entirely, is nothing new to the business world.  As the basic laws of survival tells us, one must change with the times if they expect to survive the times.

It’s worked many times over. For example:

1. ValuJet. After the 1996 crash of Flight 592 and the FAA temporarily grounding all flights, ValuJet was losing money hand over fist because no one wanted to fly with an airlines with a shady reputation.  They were later absorbed by AirTran via corporate merger. So if you flew AirTran (which I’ve done several times), you’re still flying on jets formerly owned by ValuJet, but you’re just not aware of it.
2. Ally Bank. Formerly known as GMAC bank, Ally Bank has tried to disassociate itself from the ailing auto industry in hopes to lure in customers — and their deposits! Personally, I don’t think it will be all that successful considering that anyone who Googles the name “Ally Bank” will also see the old GMAC Bank reference. I blame the bloggers!
3. The U.S. Military. Perhaps a controversial example, but isn’t it curious how an “invasion force” is quickly re-labeled (e.g. re-branded) as an “occupation force” or “policing force” once the political and/or military objectives are achieved? It’s an entirely different scenario from the business world, but the end goal is still the same… you have to sell the idea to the American public!

Personally, I’m not entirely sold that re-branding a business in this day and age will work all that well. Consumers seem to have a longer memory these days (especially the jaded ones), and with the popularity of consumer based websites and blogs, it’s doubtful that the memory of poorly run business can be forgotten. Much less forgiven.

As for Starbucks’ latest de-branding experiment, I would suspect that no one at Corporate HQ has an adequate meaning of the term “poser”.  Nothing pisses off today’s youth more than someone pretending to be something they’re not.

photo by Kanko*