The Basement Like a blog, only interesting.

Starbucks Buys 122M Pounds of Unethically Traded Beans

Full disclosure: I think most marketing is really, really bad. Why?  It's because I think most marketing people are more focused on manipulating the consumer into believing a half-truth than they are on anything even remotely related to their product.  In doing so, two things happen:

1.) Focus is shifted off of the product. (Or more importantly what the consumer can DO with the product.)

2.) A half-lie is told.

Today's case study in really bad marketing - Starbuck's Coffee.

This morning, my amazing bride brought me a hot cup o'joe from Starbucks.  As I was drinking it, I noticed that on the side of the cup it said...

YOU.

BOUGHT 228 MILLION POUNDS OF RESPONSIBLY GROWN, ETHICALLY TRADED COFFEE LAST YEAR.

"Cool." I thought. Some more text continues underneath that cardboard sleeve they put on the cup to keep you from burning yourself. At the point I noticed on the cardboard sleeve it says:

This sleeve is made from 60% post-consumer fiber.

It's part of Starbucks™ Shard Planet™
our commitment to doing business in ways that are
good to each other, coffee farmers and the planet.

"What?!?!?!" I thought. Why ONLY 60%?!?!? Why not 100%?!?!? What is so special about a cardboard ring that you can't use 100% recycled materials? Isn't recycled cardboard readily available? Is it because using 100% recycled materials would be harder to print your trademarked green-washed program name on?   And seriously Starbucks, you actually trademarked the program name "Shared Planet"?  I hope you sue everyone that tries to use the phrase "Shared Planet", perhaps with the settlement Starbucks can afford to spring for 100% recycled cardboard rings in the future.

Now don't get me wrong. I get it. 60% recycled is better than 0% but I call fowl when Starbucks tries to manipulated how I feel about them for what I consider to be a half effort. If you are going to rant about saving the planet as a marketing ploy, I expect you to step up. And with the 3-color artwork design on that cardboard ring, I have a hard time believing that Starbucks is more interested in saving the planet than they are in getting me to buy more coffee with their 60% recycled commitment. What's more, the copyright on the ring is 2008 - so no progress in 2 years.

So off with the ring. And what do I discover underneath?

Everything we do, you do. You stop by for a coffee,
And just by doing that, you let Starbucks buy more coffee
from farmers who are good to their workers, community
and planet. Starbucks bought 65% of our coffee this way
last year - 228 million pounds - and we're working with
farmers to make it 100%. It's using our size for good,
and you make it all possible. Way to go, you.

So let me get this straight. I'm responsible for buying 122 pounds of coffee beans last year from farmers who either exploit their workers, have a negative impact on their communities or using environmentally harmful practices?  And I'm supposed to feel good about this? I need a shower.

When I saw the first statement about 228 million pounds of beans I falsely assumed it was ALL of Starbucks coffee.  I'm sure that this is their intent. Only if I REMOVE the 40% non-recycled cardboard ring do I see that this is only 65% of Starbucks coffee beans. If you do the math, that means over 122 million pounds of beans come from "somewhere else".  So how committed is Starbuck to this idea of fair trade?

Like most folks, I'm not an environmental zealot or a fair trade freak - but when I have choices I like to do the thing that feels right. I also get that Starbucks is a business and they need to make profit. I don't disagree with their business practices and applaud their efforts to increase the portion of their beans purchased from ethically traded growers - but don't sell me a fairy tale.

How could this be done better?  Starbucks could start with the premise that the job is not yet done. Tell me that 35% of their beans are still being bought from people that they'd rather not do business with. And give me a timeline for how quickly they want to change this. Or better yet they should "use their size for good" and simply stop doing business with that 35% if buying form unethical growers bugs them so much  - and then use their cups to explain to the consumer why their coffee is a little more expensive this year. That's a marketing message that woudl actually make me feel better about Starbacks.

So to the exploited workers that I apparently forced into producing beans for 35% of my double mocha latte this morning. I'm really, really sorry.