Rebooting Starbucks

It has been a busy start of the year for the Starbucks marketing team. In a matter of days the company celebrated their 40th anniversary with a change on their logo, they introduced the Trenta - oversized cup, nationally launched the mobile payment system and made it by a landslide on the 2011 "Best Companies to Work For" list.

It looks like the mobile payment app system is part of an overall marketing campaign, where Starbucks is trying to create Brand Equity by reminding people why they loved Starbucks in first place: portraying Starbucks as a place that welcomes innovative ideas and that is geared towards fulfilling customer's needs even before the customer is aware of these needs in the first place.

In part, the call for increasing brand equity may come from the fact that the company suffered bad publicity during the hardest times of the economic downturn, where they had to close several hundreds of stores and fire thousands of people. The image of Starbucks being the “hip and original” coffee shop was substituted in some of their customers minds for the “cookie cut, over-priced big company coffee place". Perhaps, these new campaigns are an attempt to “go back to basics”, to the original notion of innovation, customer service and taking care of its people.

In the meantime, since it’s just been tested-out, we’ll have to wait and see how this new technology develops and what will be the costumer's impression when using it, but the marketing capabilities and ingenuity of the company definitely look very promising at least for the near future.

Sources:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Starbucks-gives-logo-a-new-apf-1766882105.html?x=0&.v=3

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2011/full_list/

http://gizmodo.com/5735822/the-new-starbucks-trenta-cup-is-bigger-than-your-stomach 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Mobile-Payment-Debuts-bw-1926630830.html?x=0&.v=1

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/starbucks_corporation/index.html

Intellectual property vs. Information sharing

The natural rights of an author should be protected equally around the world, especially with the rapid spread of information through the internet and the acceleration of technology.  Even though we are used to ''sharing'' everything nowadays,  when it comes to intellectual property we must take into account that it is private property for which the owner should be compensated for its use. With that in mind, the European Union launched several directives as an attempt to deal with copyright issues brought up by digital technology. As stated by Harald Von Hielmcrone , this in general has been beneficial to copyright holders, providing them "remuneration for public lending, prolongation of the term of protection, and legal protection of databases, and with respects to right to remuneration for reproductions, communications to the public rights and distribution rights."[1] But the key issue is that the way we share information has changed, and  businesses, companies, artists, and copyright owners in general must adapt and take advantage of these new  methods of information transfer, rather than fight against them.

Countries like France and the UK have very strict rules concerning intellectual property protection. The Hadopi Law and the digital Economy Act, laws under effect in France and the United Kingdom, respectively,  have as a goal "to punish everyone who downloads from the Internet protected works, free of charge or without the permission of the Intellectual Property owner".[2] The premise of the Hadopi law for instance is that anyone who downloads protected goods from the network without paying royalties, after the third warning, can be banned from the internet.  Achieving this is exceedingly difficult, since  it would require monitoring every possible access to the network, which is a very costly endeavor.

So the initiative of some artists to actually embrace this new form of sharing files and getting their "product" out there is proving to be a much more effective way to approach the synergy that needs to start happening between intellectual property  rights and  sharing information. It's a much faster way to reach the consumer for artists, getting feedback and potentially increasing the number of followers as well.

 Endnotes: 

[1] Von Hielmcrone, Harald (2000). "The Efforts of the European Union to harmonize Copyright and Impact on the Freedom of Information." Vol 50.  pp 36.  http://www.librijournal.org/pdf/2000-1pp29-36.pdf

[2] Manacorda, Paola (2009). "The Intellectual Property as a New good." WIPO. pp 2.

http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/wipo_smes_rom_09/wipo_smes_rom_09_b_theme02_3.pdf

Online Privacy?...Find out what I like and make it happen!

When we talk about data protection and Internet on the same sentence we are formulating a contradictory statement in itself. Internet is precisely all about sharing information. Users obtain everything they look for in search engines according to the answers previously given to the options presented to them, that is browsing the web. Because of this, and the fact that it's so interactive, the people (or computers) in charge of adding content and creating web services need to know what we as users are looking for, so that based on the best and most common answers we give them they can implement and improve these services. Online surfing 'without leaving a trace' is arguably idealistic and contradictory at the same time.

This debate becomes even more interesting when we talk about online consumers and products. Products defined as the goods and services provided by brands and the commercial use that these companies can give to the data collected out of the behavior, habits and tastes of consumers. Evidently knowing who your target market is, what is of value to them and what services are important is information that potentially helps develop the future quality of the offering, benefiting the consumer in the end. The problem with the handling of this information arises when intermediaries or third party analysts come into play.

In the past few years data sharing has taken one step further with company initiatives that facilitate users to share information and even openly publish information on social websites regarding their consumer and lifestyle habits, such as www.foursquare.com, where users facilitate their location mostly in commercial establishments and with their comments recommend these places to other users. Actively participating by "checking-in" allows people to obtain rewards, such as free meals in their favorite spots, discounts, etc. Revealing your exact location at every moment can be really scary but curiously hundreds of thousands of people very willingly do it by joining foursquare.

The inclusion of the "Track me Not" button is a really good option if developed efficiently in order to avoid our personal data to be collected for dubious ethical use. Another important ethical aspect is whether established companies, whenever you access their websites will make it hard for the consumer to actually opt out of being tracked. In the end, most companies have as a goal to know what us as consumers want so that they can provide it more effectively. For instance, if you like red cell phones, wouldn't it be great if companies knew about it so that you can find it much easier in the marketplace?

Neuromarketing: greater good or intrusion into our deepest thoughts?

Marketing has always tried to influence customers into purchasing a company's product, so it was only a matter of time before technology and advances in science helped defined more clearly what it is that makes people specially interested in a particular item for consumption, and what elements of that product can make a person embark on good feelings and/or memories. In that sense, the notion that neuromarketing is "bad" because it bypasses people's will of sharing information with marketers is a too radical of a stance in my opinion. As stated in the Times magazine article The Brain: Marketing To Your Mind by Alice Park, Neuroscience could open the door for the marketing field to remove a lot of rudimentary measures such as focus groups questionnaires and other similar studies of a population where the answers are inevitably subject to a certain degree of bias. Neuroscience is more of an instrument to reduce uncertainty in research, and in turn, both companies and the customer could benefit from these new investigative methods, since it could help business understand better the customer's conscious and unconscious needs and possible wants.

The fine line between invasive and resourceful is what needs to be clearly defined when doing this potentially complex form of marketing research. As long as the studies are conducted and used to understand the consumer and with full awareness of all individuals involved, I believe is a positive advancement for the marketing community. Neuromarketing is a clear form of system improvement by refining the process to gather information. It's not changing marketing's purpose, it's more of a tool to facilitate results.


Sources:
Park, Alice. The Brain: Marketing To Your Mind. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580370,00.html
Miyazaki, Anthony. They're inside my computer. Now they want to get inside my brain. The rise of Neuromarketing. http://e-marketingforsensiblefolk.blogspot.com/2010/11/theyre-inside-my-computer-now-they-want.html
Dooley, Roger. Neuro-Optimized Products – Good or Evil? http://www.neurosciencemarketing.com/blog/articles/neuro-optimization.htm