“I’ll have a tall vanilla latte… hold the talk on race relations in America.”
Less than a week after aiming to start a dialogue about race relations, Seattle-based Starbucks has scrapped a key part of its “Race Together” program: store employees will no longer be encouraged to write the slogan on customers’ cups.
The U.S.-only “Race Together” campaign kicked off with full-page ads in major newspapers with the headline “Shall We Overcome?” Staff were invited to write “Race Together” on cups and begin conversations about race relations with customers.
But the initiative was widely mocked on social media, with many critics seeing it as opportunistic, inappropriate and unfair to frontline staff. The swift backlash even prompted Corey duBrowa, Starbucks’ SVP of communications, to temporarily delete his Twitter account, which only added to the criticism.
Though Starbucks has scrapped the in-store cup messages, the company will reportedly continue with other elements of the initiative, including employee forums, special sections in USA Today, and expanding into more minority communities.
Here’s the chatter about where Starbucks went wrong:
“In a move that is about as anti-Milton Friedman as a business can go, Starbucks has decided to launch a dialogue about race. Bringing up the emotions that have been brought up in places including Ferguson, Missouri; Oakland, California; and New York City, CEO Howard Schultz said in a statement: ‘We at Starbucks should be willing to talk about these issues in America. Not to point fingers or to place blame, and not because we have answers, but because staying silent is not who we are.’
This is a pretty bold move for a company that caters to a clientele whose daily highlight is showing how sophisticated they are by ordering the most complicated drink at the strip-mall Starbucks drive-thru, so they can show up at the office with a tony white cup in their hand. And it flies in the face of conventional wisdom about business in that companies should be making profits, not statements and commentary about society.
…You cannot blame Starbucks for trying, as it is a bolder move than most companies would be willing to make on a subject that makes many people uncomfortable (unless they are in an online forum). But based on the history of brands trying to launch a conversation, especially with social media, you cannot be surprised the effort is failing. But at least the satire on Twitter and elsewhere is amusing.”
Jeff Nolan, EnterpriseIrregulars.com
“No matter how you spin it, this is not a good day for Starbucks, which to its credit does have real diversity programs that throw business to minority and women owned businesses. These are the kinds of programs that companies like Starbucks should be investing in, because most people don’t want and won’t accept being talked to about serious issues through patronizing slogans written on coffee cups and 140 character missives anchored with a hashtag.
Outrage in America has itself been elevated to a cause, and there may be an element of that here, but the critics seem to have a valid point by highlighting the hypocrisy of talking about diversity in a company led by old white guys.
Fair or not, Starbucks can’t ignore that fact. This leads to an important threshold that companies wading into social commentary have to meet, which is your moral authority. It would be hard to argue that Starbucks has any moral authority to lead this debate given their leadership and customer demographic (break down the stats on store locations for further evidence of this). Of course you could also argue that no one is uniquely qualified to talk about race just because of their skin color… I could make the case either way but what I won’t defend is the idea that corporate sloganeering will lead to positive change.”
“Some opponents say Starbucks bit off more than it can chew, or that it’s trying to capitalize on racial tensions in the US to sell more coffee – it doesn’t even have a branch in troubled Ferguson, MO for example, though there is one in nearby Jennings. And they noted its senior management is predominantly white.
Those views, however, seem jaded and should not deter other major for-profit brands from getting involved in well-intentioned initiatives. The reason for the backlash may simply be how it was executed throughout the week…
[CEO Howard Schultz] could have explained the full back-story of Race Together and how he visited nearly 2,000 staffers in Oakland, St. Louis, Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, and Seattle to talk about race relations.
It would have also allowed him to position some key facts he laid out during the shareholders meeting on Wednesday, such as: ‘If a partner doesn’t want to write [Race Together] on a cup, they don’t have to. If a customer doesn’t want those words written on a cup, they won’t be. We know that creating conversation is just a first step.’
…Starbucks could have communicated better from the start on Race Together, but the brand is still using its resources to – as Schultz said – ‘stimulate conversation, compassion, and action around race in America,’ which should be viewed as admirable, not opportunistic.”
“[While] Starbucks says that partners inspired Race Together, it is difficult to imagine that employees across the board have the training – or patience – necessary to orchestrate these discussions. Putting this immense task on workers, even if it is voluntary, is taxing and unfair. Customers sue restaurants and attack employees over problems as inconsequential as order mix-ups. With hundreds of customers served at a single Starbucks every day, it’s easy to imagine employees suddenly dealing with a slew of ignorant, racist or violent reactions – or individual baristas making ignorant or racist comments themselves.
Tone-deaf and self-aggrandizing aspects of Race Together haven’t helped in establishing a strong base for employees to build on. Starbucks’ press photos for the event appear to feature only white employees. The press release on Race Together bizarrely leads with the subheading “It began with one voice,” painting Howard Schultz as a visionary progressive for daring to discuss race – something others, especially people of color, haven’t exactly been silent on in recent months or the last couple centuries…
Obviously, it’s unlikely that a coffee chain is going to directly tackle racism in the U.S. However, Race Together goes beyond offering a weak solution – it shifts the responsibility for finding a resolution to employees suddenly tasked with a role that was never in their job description. Ethics aside, that’s just bad business.”
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz’s bold decision to encourage his baristas to discuss race relations with willing customers has filled me with shock and awe. I’m in awe of his courageous and good-hearted attempt to do something to bring about better awareness of racism. I’m in awe that he’s willing to put morality above profits. I’m in awe that he’s willing to endure the snarky ridicule and lame coffee jokes from pundits as well as the inevitable death threats from clueless trolls. All with nothing personally or corporately to gain — and a lot to lose.
But while in awe of his chutzpah, I’m also in shock that he thinks this will actually work.
…The problem with Howard Schultz’s Race Together program is that he’s picked the wrong venue with the wrong audience using the wrong spokespersons. Most of the customers at Starbucks probably don’t want to have their political awareness challenged by the person foaming their coffee. Minds are more likely to be changed by someone with some form of expertise in the subject, which baristas generally don’t have. Those who do wish to engage in a conversation about something as volatile as race are not open to change, they are either already the choir of believers in equality or are racists looking for an audience. Either way, no change will result from the exchange. In fact, I worry that such conversations could quickly escalate to violence.”
