A Bit Eclectic

One step forward.

Two steps back.

According to the Wall Street Journal and the Chicago Tribune, Starbucks is opening a store in Seattle that drops the name and traditional Starbucks feel. The store is simply named after its street address and built to look more like a small local coffee shop. There is no way to tell that the store is actually owned by Starbucks, customers won’t even see baristas with green aprons. The new coffee house will even serve beer and wine to mimic other local coffee places. This is a move by Starbucks to drop the big corporate image and attract new customers.

I give Starbucks credit for trying to attract new customers and take a different route, but I don’t think it will work. From my observations, people that go to Starbucks want a sugary Starbucks drink. Some people don’t even like coffee, but would happily get a mocha as long as the mermaid is on the side. Starbucks has a strong grasp on these customers; our local Caribou Coffee couldn’t even compete and ended up shutting their doors. This cash cow of Starbucks loving caffeine addicts is best milked by multiple, easily accessible, locations. A new name and look will only confuse them as they seek out another Starbucks.

However, Starbucks is most likely targeting a different group. They are trying to get the people who look down on the corporate giant, those who go off the beaten path. I believe this segment either has a coffee place they go to regularly, or would see through Starbucks’ disguise. The venture could be a risky move if this segment doesn’t fall for the bait. Starbucks wouldn’t bring in any new customers and confuse their loyal customer base.

It is good to see Starbucks trying new things to bring in revenue, but this could be a risky move that might not pay off. Their strong brand recognition is both beneficial and a hinderance to future growth. At this point they might have their hands tied.

I am a huge fan of the Kindle, but this kind of thing really pisses me off. Amazon has deleted copies of “1984″ and “Animal Farm” on users Kindles and credited their account because the publisher was unhappy with digital distribution. These are copies that users had legitametly purchased.

This paragraph from David Pogue’s blog really sums it up.

As one of my readers noted, it’s like Barnes & Noble sneaking into our homes in the middle of the night, taking some books that we’ve been reading off our nightstands, and leaving us a check on the coffee table.

Amazon says that this was a rare case, but I don’t think it should have even been considered.

UPDATE 7/18/09: According to Ars Technica, the books were deleted because they were illegal copies distributed without the publishers permission. This sheds a little more light on the situation, but it remains unsettling that Amazon can delete books off my Kindle without my permission.

(via Smarterware)