S w
8B09A02
Teaching Note
TROUBLE BREWS AT STARBUCKS
Lauranne Buchanan and Carolyn J. Simmons wrote this teaching note as an aid to instructors in the classroom use of the case
Trouble Brews At Starbucks, No. 9B09A002. This teaching note should not be used in any way that would prejudice the future use
of the case.
Ivey Management Services prohibits any form of reproduction, storage or transmittal without its written permission. Reproduction of
this material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction rights organization. To order copies or request permission to
reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Ivey Management Services, c/o Richard Ivey School of Business, The University of
Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 3K7; phone (519) 661-3208; fax (519) 661-3882; e-mail: cases@ivey.uwo.ca.
Copyright © 2009, Ivey Management Services Version: (A) 2009-01-22
SYNOPSIS
After going public in 1992, Starbucks’ strong balance sheet and double-digit growth made it a hot growth
stock. The Starbucks vision was coffee culture as community, the Third Place between work and home
where friends share the experience and exotic language of gourmet coffee. Its growth was fueled by rapid
expansion in the number of stores both in the United States and in foreign markets, the addition of drive-
though service, its own music label that promoted and sold CDs in stores and other add-on sales including
pastries and sandwiches. In an amazingly short time, Starbucks became a wildly successful global brand.
But in 2007, Starbucks’ performance slipped; the company reported its first-ever decline in customer visits
to U.S. stores, which led to a 50 per cent drop in its share price. In January 2008, the board ousted CEO
Jim Donald and brought back Howard Schultz — Starbucks’ visionary leader and CEO from 1987 to 2000
and current chairman and chief global strategist — to re-take the helm.
Starbucks’ growth strategies have been widely reported and analyzed, but rarely with an eye to their impact
on the brand. This case offers a compelling example of how “non-brand” managerial decisions — such as
store locations, licensing arrangements and drive-through service — can make sense on financial criteria at
one point in time, yet erode brand positioning and equity in the longer term. Examining the growth
decisions made in the United States provides a rich context in which to examine both the promise and
drawback of further foreign expansion.
OBJECTIVES AND DISCUSSION OUTLINE
One of the overarching objectives of the case is to demonstrate how brand value and positioning can be
influenced by seemingly unrelated, non-branding decisions. That Starbucks’ new-product initiatives —
from food to music, books and movies — influenced brand meaning is obvious. But the Starbucks story
offers a more nuanced appreciation of how brand value is built and maintained. The company’s aggressive