March 25, 2005
Stiffing Starbucks, et in terra Pax
As I sit here, finishing my Jim Beam whiskey sour and starting on my Starbucks quad con panna, I'm a little peeved.As you may or may not know, I'm a fan of Starbucks and I'm a fan of Jim Beam. So, imagine my joy when I heard the two were working together to create a coffee liqueur. How interesting, I thought. (Actually, I believe "I wonder if they need a product marketing manager to lead that product?" was my first thought.) Stimulant and depressant. And likely tasty, at that.
So it turns out that not everyone was as in love with the idea as I. In fact, one company, Pax World Funds, decided to make a big stink about dropping Starbucks from their "socially responsible" fund. They decided to do that now. Months and months after the announcement that this thing was going forward.
Motley Fool covered it. And I'm sure the Starbucks discussion boards are all a twitter. Intrigue. Scandal. Outrage.
Phooey.
Yes, alcohol can be bad. I know. Trust me, I know. I have had family members killed by drunk drivers. Alcohol can be bad, but so can anything else. Have you tried reading through this entire blog on a bender? That will make you ill, as well. Everything in moderation.
What upsets me is not the action that Pax World Funds took. Or even their jumping on the demonizing-of-liquor bandwagon. Good for them. I respect that. They have developed a guiding principle for choosing investments and they stand by it. I appreciate the Pax World folks remaining true to their cause.
The aggravating part is that they decided to make a big news splash out of the most negative of news items. Shame on you, Starbucks, says Pax World Funds. Shame on you for expanding your product line of luxury drinks to a different market. For shame. For shame. Shame on you for adding another drug to your portfolio.
Here's the thing: If you're so concerned about sustainability and social responsibility, why, in the name of all that is good, would you invest in a coffee company in the first place?
Let's just completely ignore the environmental impact of coffee and focus on the qualities of the bean. Coffee contains a stimulant. That is, a drug called caffeine. It has addictive qualities. To wit, "continued consumption of caffeine can lead to tolerance. Upon withdrawal, the body becomes oversensitive to adenosine, causing the blood pressure to drop dramatically, leading to headache and other symptoms."
Why was it socially responsible for Pax World to fund the promotion and sale of one drug, but not to promote another? Because it was helping them make a great deal of coin, no doubt. And most likely because their investors didn't start asking that very question until alcohol entered the picture.
Quick, they thought. Drop Starbucks and make it look like we're doing it out of the goodness of our hearts.
So now, to move beyond my griping and land upon the little marketing lesson this one taught me...
You never get a second chance to make a first impression.
I had never heard of Pax World Funds before today. And, now, I don't like them. I like the idea behind the company. I like their principles and their cause, but I don't like the sniping they did. I don't like the people there. And I don't think I'm in the minority. This was a poor choice of ways to put themselves on the map. And, while on the surface it seemed like the right thing to do, dig a little deeper and it smacks of hypocrisy.
It's an emotional reaction. Not logical. Kirk not Spock. Welcome to the world of branding.
I'm an investor. I try to be responsible in my investing. Why have I never heard of these people before? I should be their target market. Why would they choose to make this their initial introduction to me?
Rather than get all uppity, why not work to enlighten people on all of the positive things Pax funds do? Tell me about the positive investments Pax World supports. And share some positive stories about the role Pax plays in a generally evil society. That's a socially responsible stance.
Instead of going for the quick-hit splashy negative story, why don't they talk about the programs Pax World supports? Do they have a literacy program that's as effective as Starbucks'? Are they working to improve working conditions in third-world countries?
I mean, sure, this goody-two-shoes line of news will take longer to payoff, but you've gone 34 years without an introduction, what's one more? Besides, you're the one who chose the socially responsible stance. That's your brand. Work within your brand.
What is Pax World doing that is so good? I'm sure there is plenty, but I just don't see it. And being a tattletale isn't helping their case. Unless that's the definition of social responsibility these days.
Something tells me there is something more here than meets the eye, and that this was just a hypocritical means of covering their tracks. And that's what their press release did for me. Negative negative negative. Ah, social responsibility.
Maybe I just don't get it. Maybe this is a great move. Maybe I just need some more Starbucks coffee. What do you think? Please feel free to comment, critique, and, by all means, return.
Stiffing Starbucks, et in terra Pax
| | Subscribe:
RSS, Bloglines
