I appreciate your humble acceptance of my “patronizing” tone. Perhaps you mistake my lack of reaction to somewhat hostel accusations of non-responsiveness.
You continue to claim to know the Starbuck’s marketing strategy for new store development, yet continue to do nothing more than repeat the emotionally engaging yet factually inaccurate characterizations of the growth of a successful chain. It’s not hard to find these editorial arguments – successful organizations draw them like flies. And I would find it very difficult to believe that Naomi Klein knows more about Starbucks store development strategy than I – I wouldn’t trash her claims unless I knew better.
So let’s focus on the two new items of information you’ve provided. First we have the MetroActive article that looks at the turnover of three independent stores – and stores where only one (!) site later became a Starbucks (the article admits that most of the stories that support your generalized claims are “clouded with exaggeration and lacked specific details”). The article tries to paint a picture of a nefarious corporate giant squashing small independent coffee shops. Instead, we have one independent cashing out a lease (his own business decision), one who paid higher rent (or what they call market rent), and one who could not pay rent (with no evidence of a competing Starbucks in the area).
What I really appreciate about the article is the following statement:
Mike Ferguson, media spokesman for the Specialty Coffee Association of America, contends that it is "fairly rare" for independents to harbor bad feelings about Starbucks. In fact, he explains, "Most independents are seeing their businesses improve. The number of independents in the industry has not changed, even with the growth of Starbucks."
I guess that is the best, direct evidence you’ve provided. Even better, it supports my contentions.
The second set of facts you present show a small reduction in the marketshare held by independents. Never mind that the total number of independent coffee shops is
increasing, or that the rate of growth of independent coffee shops is
equal to Starbuck in 2002 and 2003. If anything, the fact you present only show a slight increase in growth rate for other chain stores.
So, thank you for the facts.
I’ve already explained the trademark issues and the need for
any holder of a trademark to defend the mark or lose it. The David & Goliath characterization of the issue does have emotional appeal. But if a corporation invests in the creation of a trademark, and can lose its rights to the mark everywhere by the actions of one infringer, it would be irresponsible not to stop the one infringer. Why does the fact that someone want to infringe on a trademark (take or steal) not bother you?
It is either fair nor productive to claim you’ve “done all the work in this thread” and I’ve offered “nothing in response”. We can go back, point by point to match your claims and my responses. I would hope this would be a more productive exchange of ideas, not a desire for a “win”.