Comments on: Anne Saunders, the Starbucks “generosity experiment” and other marketing innovations

By: Calle & Company

Calle & Company — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 12:46:59 +0000

Not to rain on the parade, but if this is/was an innovation then why has Starbucks stopped growing and why are they closing 600 stores today? The last time the stock peaked at around $40 was May 5, 2006 and it never bounced back. It’s around $18 now. Innovation is something that takes a company like Starbucks back to the day when the stock sold for around $22, grew to $44, split than repeated the same cycle all over again.

By: M E-L

M E-L — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 13:19:26 +0000

Looks like they read your blog…

http://adage.com/article?article_id=113059

By: livingbrands

livingbrands — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 03:52:50 +0000

October’s Top Blogging

It’s been a bumper month for good posts (harvest season and all that, maybe). So, if you find you have a few spare minutes, you may want to acquaint yourself with the following… Format wars David Armano’s Manifesto for life

By: M E-L

M E-L — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:37:58 +0000

OK, I misread “Why not give the barista the opportunity to hand out free coffee as if they were passing along someone else’s generosity”. Sorry ’bout that.

By: Grant

Grant — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:34:49 +0000

M E-L, I think the thing to do here is to give out a free coffee. If someone asks, it’s from Starbucks. If they don’t ask, they are free to assume what they will. I wasn’t advocating deception, but arguing against it. Best, Grant

By: M E-L

M E-L — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:45:14 +0000

“It is not entirely ethical to create the impression that a free coffee comes from someone else when in fact it comes from Starbucks.” It’s also a potential disaster. The beauty of the “Starbucks moment” came from its _authenticity_. Try and fake that, in this age of the Blog Panopitcon, and you’ll get burned. See for instance Court TV’s attempt at an “authentic” story that turned out to be a fake, hawking their TV show:

http://www.snopes.com/love/revenge/emily.asp

By: Grant

Grant — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 09:26:40 +0000

D. Archer, good point, even when the product in question is a washing machine, the “reciprocal” could still be a cup of coffee or something equally portable. Best, Grant

Kevin, yes, we are a miracle of perfect strangers. Thanks, Grant

By: Kevin Marks

Kevin Marks — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 06:24:24 +0000

Snopes covers the emailed coupon. http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/nothing/starbucks.asp Deferred reciprocity is a common feature in hunter-gatherer societies, and the idea of “don’t pay it back, pay it forward” is a modern variant. Harnessing this via coupons is harder, as it undermines the iterated tit-for-tat with known parties that is the ESS.

By: D. Archer

D. Archer — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 01:24:31 +0000

To the extent that other businesses and people might benefit from similar acts of generosity, it’s worth saying that Starbucks deals in low cost, high volume products. Is there a way to tender an act of generosity to a customer, or someone else, if you sell electronics, furniture, software, or other products or services that are expensive, low volume, and indvisible?
In short, to what extent are generosity and reciprocity scalable?

By: dilys

dilys — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:24:08 +0000

Hello, Peter, let’s not romanticize distant cultures. In the Balkans, when I put out a lavatory paper roll in the, ahem, post-Socialist undersupplied ladies’ room, the next “patron” took it away with her, so she’d have plenty the rest of the day. And I go to church with lots of Arabs. Believe me, the generosity is lovely and only after you’ve been defined as part of the tribe. Strangers get bargained up! It’s no accident the Open Source movement originated in the prosperous societies (the US, was it?)

But my point, having indulged that reaction, runs otherwise. The key to prosperity is the *motion* of the flow of goods and currency. I often think, if I pay my grocer $50, and he pays the laundry $50, and the laundress pays her doctor $50, and the doctor pays her son’s tutor $50, and so on … it’s *the same total $50;* the flow is everything.

Generosity for the heck of it as described by Grant just adds even more motion that need not wait for an immediate exchange. Not to mention the good feeling that multiplies.

And I think commercially *pretending* it’s a “pass-it-on” stinks. Better a coupon that tells the story and then fudges a little: “And in that spirit we want you to…” I catch them inventing a heartwarming imaginary scenario to involve me in, and they’re my economic history.