Last week I visited Brown-Forman in Louisville, Kentucky, to meet the global team responsible for marketing Jack Daniel’s whisky. With its iconic packaging and authentic values, Jack Daniel’s makes a fascinating case study, but as I discussed the brand with different people, other brands entered the conversation: Apple’s iPod and Starbucks. What do these three brands from far-flung categories have in common?
The Jack Daniel’s team places a lot of emphasis on the brand’s core values of authenticity and independence. In my discussion with Mike Keyes, who is global managing director for Jack Daniel’s, we agreed that these values give the whiskey brand a positioning similar to Marlboro and Harley Davidson. But what strikes me most about the brand’s values is the hankering for simpler times evoked by the brand’s advertising. All Jack Daniel’s is made in one small town, Lynchburg, Tennessee, where the locals profess to make the whisky “as well as we can.” I believe that one of the attractions of Jack Daniel’s is its provenance – the fact that it comes from a specific place – and that the place speaks of less frenetic times.
Later, during a wide-ranging conversation with Jim Murphy, global creative director, and Mike Isaac, global marketing manager for Europe and Africa, this issue came up again. I asked whether there were other brands that might share this “calm amidst the storm” positioning. In my mind I had already tagged Apple’s iPod as one such brand, so I was amused me when Mike Isaac promptly produced a brand new iPod from his backpack.
There can be little doubt that the iPod is well on its way to becoming iconic, in part because it is instantly recognizable, and in part because it addresses a need to create a personal space where people can escape a crowded and noisy world. (Click here to read my first post on iconic brands, and here for a follow-up.) We also discussed the fact that iPod had helped Apple recover its mojo. It used to be that the Mac stood for simplicity of use compared to a Windows PC, but that advantage has been eroded over time as Windows adopted an interface with similar functionality. With the simplicity of the iPod design, Apple once again re-established its leadership status as a brand focused on making technology human.
From there the discussion moved on to Starbucks. The brand idea behind Starbucks is often referred to as “the third place,” that is, an alternative to work and home. For me, the description “urban oasis” really sums up what Starbucks is all about, but Mike Isaac does not relate to that concept. Mike commented that, coming as he does from Seattle, a city with a heritage of great coffee shops, he found it tough to identify the source of Starbucks’ success. Currently based in London, Mike is also at a loss to explain why the Brits took to the chain so readily when they already had a “third place” with a much longer heritage, the local pub.
An English pub is a cultural icon; is Starbucks an iconic brand? It is certainly symbolic of a specific lifestyle. We all agreed that the logo is well known, but does it stand out in the way that an iPod does, or a bottle of Jack Daniel’s? The brand does seem to address the Western need for respite from the modern world, and many people seem addicted to its offerings, but somehow, we agreed, it seems to lack authenticity. What is missing?
Starbucks is often held up as a brand that has succeeded without advertising. True enough, but maybe the brand’s aggressive global expansion is more responsible for its success than the brand itself. With a retail business like Starbucks, a lot rests on location. The great experience that was once assured is now being weakened as the brand franchises to other operators and extends its presence into airports and hotel lobbies, which can’t provide the same calm atmosphere as the original retail outlets. Is the sensory experience of visiting a Starbucks enough to sustain brand loyalty without something more? What else might it need?
To my mind what is missing is the brand’s own voice telling its story. As Jim mentioned in reference to Jack Daniel’s, stories hold a tremendous fascination and appeal to us humans. Stories often inspire us, when, by contrast, reality often lets us down. Outside of the marketing community – most of whom will know the Starbucks story by heart – how many people really know where the brand comes from and what it stands for? Starbucks may present a consistent “face” to the world, but, lacking a voice, the company may have difficulty in continuing to create and maintain strong emotional bonds with customers.
Our discussion ended without any definitive conclusions about Starbucks. We didn’t settle whether it was iconic, or whether it was lacking a brand story. But I do feel certain that brands that succeed in projecting and delivering a feeling of calm and seclusion will prosper as the pace of the world around us continues to accelerate.
So what do you think? Is Starbucks iconic? Why? What other brands today address the need for calm and respite? Is this need only a Western urban phenomenon or is it shared by people around the world? Please let me know your thoughts.
Tags: Millward Brown, Nigel Hollis, iconic brands, brand icon, branding, urban oasis, Jack Daniels, Starbucks, brand values, Brown-Forman, Jim Murphy, Mike Isaac, Mike Keyes, iPod
(26 votes, average: 3.35 out of 5)
Loading ...
October 29th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
I would argue that Starbucks ‘Coffee’ (not the retail space) is the brand, and the coffee itself always has a story…where does it originate from, how have the beans been roasted, how is the coffee prepared. The options for personalization according to taste are limitless.
For the masses Starbucks coffee is pretty authentic (although the masterbrand and retail space aren’t), in fact I would go so far as to say that there are ‘Starbucks Snobs’ who are more discerning than aficionados of other lowest common denominator fast food brands.
In addition I would imagine that most Starbucks probably aren’t consumed in the ‘3rd Space’ (doesn’t Playstation already own that territory?) The comparison between pubs and coffee shops also seems a bit silly. Most people don’t get a ‘take out’ Stella from their local pub….to then drink at their desk at work as a pick me up on a Friday morning, and I have never heard anyone arrange to meet in Starbucks before going on to a club.
Please tell me that agency types in Soho (Lon not NY) haven’t abandoned the Pub on a lunchtime/Friday night/any day when the sun is shining for Starbucks?
October 30th, 2007 at 4:20 am
I absolutely buy in to the idea that brands offering a sense of calm will be successful as the pace of change around us increases. I would argue that Google does this very successfully in the online world. For me, their clean, simple and efficient home page is still the best place to start any online journey. I recently experimented with a month of ‘igoogle’ - what couldn’t be better than a personalised page which combined all my favourite online resources in one place? The answer: something which contained none of them. We definitely need brands to help provide calm, and as long as Google can maintain their simple and elegant design, then it will continue to be an online haven for me.
October 30th, 2007 at 9:45 am
I tend to agree with Diamond Jack.
I think Starbucks had perfect timing to catch an emerging consumer trend: the desire to have good coffee. Think of how many older people have ‘double cream, double sugar’ in their coffee. My London born, Canadian living 67-year-old Dad still has double double. He doesn’t believe coffee tastes good.
The idea that it was coffee and not sanctuary seems true in Toronto, the city I grew up in. A bunch of Starbucks-like places (Second Cup, Timothy’s) offered an urban oasis, but more importantly they offered good coffee (we knew it was ‘good’ because it was three times the price). Since none of them really advertise, the only way to distinguish them was location — they all truly felt the same.
I think that if you don’t tell someone a story, they will make one up on their own. So I think people have different reasons for going to Starbucks (after, “to get good coffee”). But that means they more than likely won’t have a reason to stay. In my new adopted city of Buffalo, there’s a Starbucks across the road from a local coffee shop that offers the same things as Starbucks.
Thus, for Buffalonians, the two have different stories: Starbucks, worldwide conglomerate with good coffee. Spot, local joint with good coffee.
The ‘good coffee’ angle is well-defined now (thanks in large part to Starbucks.) Now, the next story will be the reason to buy a certain good coffee (you will always have Starbucks snobs). And as local places like Spot pop back up, Starbucks, without a story, will struggle, I think.
October 31st, 2007 at 6:49 am
I’d like to add a comment on the issue of Starbucks choosing not to tell their story. I agree with Matt — their failure to articulate their story will be damaging in time. Not only do they allow anyone to write their own story (arguably a very good thing), but they allow competitors to write it for them (not so good).
Some years ago I had the fortune to work with Snapple when they moved from a “cult” brand to creating their story. And while the agency did a brilliant job in defining that story, the task was so much harder because the brand failed to lead. (As an aside, the agency recognized that the brand story was a collection of stories from their consumers and captured those stories in commercials hosted by “Wendy” the affable and approachable customer relations person. The campaign helped rocket the brand to the point that Quaker overpaid for it. But that’s another story).
To return to the main narrative, I believe that Snapple did lose their dominant position — partly because of the inability of new users to understand the brand. The campaign resonated strongly with people on the coasts who had discovered the brand, but it was just another beverage to the majority of Americans
Moral of the story is for the brand to take charge of its story and not allow the consumer to define it for you.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:02 am
Thank you all for your comments.
So we seem to be coming down to a the following conclusion:
For many people Starbucks is actually about the coffee more than the location experience. But good coffee no longer differentiates, many places offer it. Left to interpret things on their own peoples’ perceptions will drift apart and lose cohesion (see previous post on the importance of shared perceptions) and Starbucks may suffer as a result.
Does that capture it?
P.S. Diamond nice to see you commenting again. On a personal note I used bring pints from my local pub in Leamington to drink at home…but then it was only 20 yards away. No idea what the planners in London currently do on a Friday when the sun is shining. I do know that one planner I worked with at O&M in NYC a while back always wanted to meet in the Starbucks downstairs come rain or shine.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:13 am
Phil just sent out an article in Adweek referring to JWT worldwide chairman and CEO Bob Jeffrey who says iconic brands like Apple, Whole Foods and Harley Davidson have “reignited the primacy of the brand. In talking about the brands, the conversations get more interesting.” Is this a case of great minds think alike or fools seldom differ?
November 1st, 2007 at 6:45 am
Just a quick post on whether calm and respite is a Western phenomeon. Certainly I would say this need is shared in Japan. Particularly striking is the pervasiveness of the ‘my time’ proposition to men (sometimes harking back to the olden days). This makes me think of Douglas Holt’s theory of iconic brands tapping into contradictions. Japanese men have very long work hours yet very low job satsifaction - on the one hand this makes sense, yet on the other it’s a personal contradiction of how you spend your life.
I’m not so sure of the success of brands in tapping into this however. There`s a point at which it becomes a cliche where no brand can own it.
November 1st, 2007 at 7:18 am
Hi Chris, great comment, thank you.
Maybe it is too late for a brand to address this tension because it is too overt? People have acknowledged it as a pervasive issue making it tough for a brand to take a leadership stance by addressing it. It seems to me that some of the power of an iconic brand rests in speaking to a cultural tension before it is generally recognized.
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:42 am
Hi All,
I would agree to Matt and Phil that their failure to articulate their story will be damaging in time. But with the kind of location that they have (in the countries that they are present) it will take some doing.
My question is whether advertising is the only way to tell a brand story? Would McDonald be a lesser brand if it had not been advertising?
Can a brand not be telling a story by the sheer experience? I love coffee and am not a Starbuck fan but whenever I am traveling I look forward to the Starbucks experience. The key here is the consistency of look and feel & normally good and cheerful service and reasonable product.
We happen to do number of meetings, some with planners in the Starbucks down in the building. But then China is different
Cheers
Sandeep
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:33 am
The thing that is most strange is that Starbucks has a compelling back story. Friends with diverse backgrounds study under coffee guru to launch a place to offer great coffee. But they’ve missed that window, because people are now sold on $4 coffee. I’ll bet most people don’t know the back story. And so, as a brand, they have to back into location and ‘urban oasis’ since the reality of Starbucks at an airport doesn’t fit the promise.
Could Starbucks one day be the text-book example of why a company shouldn’t grow this big without telling their story?
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:39 am
Hi Sandeep and Matt, thanks for the comments.
It is interesting to see the diversity of feedback on this topic.
Can a brand tell a stroy through experience? I say no. You leave too much to the interpretation of the individual which potentially means:
1) Their attention focuses on negatives not positives (no enhancement effect from communications)
2) Common understanding of what the brand stands for is lost or subject to the vagaries of popular opinion
Matt, I suspect that they could back into the story and it would make the brand much stronger. But, as you suggest, I suspect this could be a textbook case of a brand losing its own plot!
November 5th, 2007 at 7:27 am
At our recent Marketing Forward conference, Allen Adamson (author of Brand Simple) commented that “brand” and “branding” are often confused. Starbucks has a core brand identity that has been brewing for about 25 years. It is a great coffee, presented in a consistently warm atmosphere. Starbucks has all the elements of a classic brand: great brand experience, clarity of offer, perceived leadership - and tremendous business basics.
BrandZ data shows that Starbucks is blowing the competition out of the water - and is likely to continue to do so…
People establish habits around the Starbucks brand experience. Every Sunday, my wife and I have coffee at our local Starbucks. It is delightful, affordable luxury - apart from the hectic world. The brand experience is great! We look forward to it.
The blog is questioning whether Starbucks should put more effort into brand-ING - so that it can frame the conversation about the Brand. I wonder about this. A bad ad campaign could do this brand a lot of harm. Whereas a great campaign would… define the brand?
November 5th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Hi Frank, thanks for adding another dimension to the debate - that of ritual. It is a very powerful driver of brand loyalty and makes the experience even stronger provided expectations are met consistently.
I think one of my problems with Starbucks is that my experience is inconsistent: the one at 251 W 42nd St, New York, NY, is good, the one in Louisville airport OK, and the one at Heathrow, Terminal 4, dire (cramped, noisy and rude staff). So I lack a consistent or ritualistic experience.
I suspect it is only people like myself who need to hear what Starbucks stands for. You experience it every weekend.
Cheers,
Nigel
November 28th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
I think you have touched on the key problem, Nigel. Starbucks is relying on having a core group act like Frank does and have the ritualistic experience reiterate brand meaning. I do think a brand can tell its story very effectively through experience alone, but when that experience is not consistent over time, cracks develop. Given Starbucks seems to have ceded control over the very experience they are relying on to build the brand, it is not surprising that we are having this debate.
My attitude to Starbucks is closer to Frank’s, although I rarely visit the “oasis” and actively dislike standard versions of coffee. But I love the idea Starbucks represents (– “stop & smell the roses”), and therefore, give them my business by buying Chai from them at every airport I happen to frequent …
November 29th, 2007 at 3:23 am
Hi Satya, of course the really interesting thing is that Starbucks have now decided to advertise, using TV and print no less. I have been wondering how long it would be before they ran out of distribution runway and had to resort to traditional marketing tactics…I feel another post oming on!
Cheers, Nigel
January 8th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
here’s someone else’s view of starbucks. http://www.thirdwayblog.com/post-types/commentary/commentary-where-did-starbucks-falter.html. My mum just spend some time in England and was struck by how many Starbuck’s there were. Wonder if they grew because of a need for a meeting place (used to be pub) that was smoke free? And now, with smoking banned, they’ll lose that edge as well.