Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Anti-branding: Why the Starbucks "15th Ave" Store Is Doomed to Fail

Perhaps my biggest beef with 15th Ave is that it's fundamentally dishonest.

A friend used the term 'anti-branding' in the context of what Starbuck's is doing to not be Starbuck's. Not sure the term is original. Not sure anti-branding is new although it's goal - to not be something (as opposed to for example, diversifying and/or reorganizing to enable a different financial model) seems unique. What other brands might want to anti-brand? Some airlines? Some banks? Some newspapers? Other restaurant chains (like, say McDonalds)? Some car companies (Saturn didn't work out so well for GM). Interesting to see how this goes.

Posted via web from Jim's posterous

1 comment:

add said...

I work with a century old American Brand that every consumer has in their home. They have spent untold billions on product lines, of the same basic product, with specific and highly advertised names. Study after study shows NO ONE, NO ONE readily knows the names of the product lines. They just know the name of the basic brand, and they only accept it because it is cheap and readily available. Being cheap, and readily available IS the brand, and the reason they have been in business for over a century. It's not fun, its not sexy, and it is not anything YOU can sell. But it is the only thing that works. Ask McDonalds.
As for Starbucks, they are in deep doo doo thanks to branding. They know the definition of insanity and they are doing what they can do. Is it dishonest? No. It just blows up your business model.