Does this make any sense, or the main worry for now would be competition and the mobile ordering problems?
This kind of "political" impact in Cos. is something I always like to analyze.
Any takes on this?
Trending Content - Investment Banking Forum
Career Resources
This was one of the most contentious elections and sbux thought this was going to be good PR? They should have learned after their "let's discuss racism" campaign.
Companies would be better off sticking to making a good product and not injecting political beliefs into their customer base. It just pisses off half the people.
I have mixed feelings about this. I am not against companies making "political" statements if aligned with their owner/shareholders view, BUT...This will only result in alienating part of their customer base, while the rest won't spend more b/c of their actions.
I sort of agree, but unless a company is absolutely focused on one group it is generally a bad idea.
The CEO of sbux has a job to maximize profits for the shareholders. This doesn't do that.
I still drink sbux cause it is right across from my office, but I do make an effort to go to smaller and better places as much as possible. I'm sure this feeling isn't uncommon. The company has lost their edge in general and this is just stupid on Shultz part.
How could possibly know what your shareholders political views are when you're a publicly traded company?
The Starbucks PR announcement was they would hire 10,000 refugees... at the same time Starbucks admited there are only 8,800 or so U.S. military vets working for Starbucks. So now they've just announced they're going to stop hiring U.S. citizens - or at least give priority to refugees - including not hiring military vets, at a time when 1/2 the U.S. population (Trump supporters) is for shutting down/ reducing immigration and refugees.
You've lost the Trump voter as a customer. You've lost the military and their families as customers. And, the first Muslim refugee that is hired at a Starbucks on / near a military base will be a lighting rod .... I would love to understand the PR thinking of the moron at Starbucks.
Yeah, as I said before, the problem w/ this is that you risk alienating a large part of your customer base, while the rest won't generate more revenue just cuz they think you did something cute
Unfortunately this "Starbucks" decision is what happens when a company management decides to take a social stance. It's a slippery slope area of corporate management, and social decisions that seem "reasonable" to boards of directors and upper management come across many times as elite out of touch decisions. Sometimes the decisions come back to harm the corporation.
The other recent blunder is liberal Kellogg's vs. conservative Brietbart.com. Kellogg's sales have been hurt by a Brietbart led boycott. While Kellogg's claims there has been no real impact, their stock is flat/down in a rising market (vs. their competitors' stocks rising in the same industry segment), and they are doing employee layoffs.
Quos eos delectus ex esse. Corrupti dolores sed cumque a amet et harum totam. Nihil corrupti quia cum enim sint distinctio omnis nam.
Aliquid totam error impedit voluptatem. Modi et minima magnam. Atque eos illo qui qui enim ea. Laudantium libero voluptates quaerat. Molestiae pariatur culpa quisquam voluptas dolor omnis. Non odio saepe reiciendis ut et consequatur beatae.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...