For years, as its stores spread like kudzu across the country, Starbucks was accused of driving neighborhood coffee shops out of business. In most cases, it seems to have done exactly the opposite. In recent times, the Seattle-based company is in retreat, having closed hundreds of stores and laid off thousands of employees. But now it’s making a crafty move on its community competitors, opening new locations in Seattle that look, feel, and behave like local mom-and-pop cafes, with the Starbucks logo nowhere in sight. If these prototype “stealth Starbucks” succeed in Seattle, you may well see (or rather, not see) one soon in your city as well. [%comments]
Secret Starbucks
TAGS: business
and 
. You can also watch it on 
So instead of working on their image, and creating sub-brands, they’re “dumping it and duping us”. Nice. Popular knowledge of this tactic seems likely to backfire very-very badly. These (the backlash) are BASIC lessons of marketing – and Starbucks as a corporation is no neophyte, so this seems something more darkly shrewd than slightly harmless.
Could there be a direct correlation between caffeine consumption and hyperactive mentality we have right now? It seems like everyone from soccer moms to internet junkies are all so wired up that even daily activities need to be done so fast or anger flares up even at the instance of slight delays. I hope some people switch to non-caffeine and be mellow.
While the stories point out a decidedly different answer to what Starbucks is doing (basically, why not be Coke and Pepsi).
Could this also be a result of people traveling less. Starbucks/ McDonalds are always oasis of the traveler where a consistant well known product will be served.
It could be people are less interested in finding a product they know while out of thier home area and more focused on people finding the things that make thier own region special.
I think Panera/ Atlanta bread company does the same thing.
This is a brilliant move towards exposing anti-corporation hypocrisy, showing that their hatred of corporations is based on style, not substance.
@Lee (#2) – Are you serious? Give me a break…
The first of these stores was opened only a few blocks from me. I would like to point out that “Inspired by Starbucks” is still on its front door and on the wall behind the counter so it’s not a complete avoidance of their brand. Also, there is an actual Starbucks one block away inside the grocery store. Also is the fact that you can’t hardly order any of the typical drinks you might purchase at a regular Starbucks. For example, their focus is on french press coffee and loose leaf teas, and the only flavor they offer if you still want a latte is vanilla.
With all of this in mind, it’s not so much “stealth Starbucks” as it is an attempt to branch into a new brand.
“This is a brilliant move towards exposing anti-corporation hypocrisy…”
Although I’m sure some corporate bashing is hypocrisy, it’s sometimes difficult to tell how much.
The “sins” of corporations are much more visible and persistent than those of your neighborhood corner store. XYZ Local Sporting Goods buying unknowingly from sweat shops via distributors is at least conceptually different from Nike setting up their factories in China… though the effect is probably not too dissimilar in the end analysis.
Smaller businesses may not be any less guilty in sum, but just as they consolidate profits, conglomerated operations more efficiently accumulate collective iniquities that had previously been spread amongst many disparate organizations.
With power comes responsibility… and probably some sort of spandex costume.
There is a significant difference between a style and a fashion — though some belive them to be synonomous. Coffee shops have lasted in this country forever. So, they go under the rubric of style.
However, Starbucks is a relatively new phenomenon. I love the coffee there. But, it gained a status and price way beyond the quality of the product. This made it ripe to be driven by status seekers and, therefore, peer pressure.
So people who couldn’t in fact discern the difference between instant, freeze-dried and (I believe) the superior Starbucks’ products went there to be up with the latest fashion. And, the quite high prices charged helped the chain to spread even more rapidly. This generated even more status– not to mention increased revenues.
But, it must be added that by definition, fashions come and go… Styles may change — but, tend to last over a long period of time.
I will add that I believe that their plan to convert some of the branded stores to ‘coffee shops’ has little chance of being effective.