Starbucks is one of the brands that isn't afraid to get political in an increasingly polarized world.

Its most recent political statement: it announced plans to hire 10,000 refugees following US President Donald Trump's enactment of a temporary travel ban targeting individuals from a number of predominantly Muslim countries.

The announcement, which was written by Starbucks' founder Howard Schultz and also came with statements about the American Dream "being called into question," sparked calls for a Starbucks boycott, and #BoycottStarbucks became a trending topic on Twitter. At the same time, Starbucks also found itself receiving calls of support for standing up for its beliefs.

So what was the cost or benefit of its announcement? As it turns out, answering that question with any level of confidence is really, really difficult.

According to the YouGov BrandIndex, which "tracks public perception of thousands of brands across the world every day," Starbucks' reputation took a big hit following its announcement. 

Prior to the announcement, YouGov's data indicated that 30% of consumers would consider making their next coffee purchase at Starbucks. After the announcement, that dropped to 24%.

Additionally, Starbucks' YouGov BrandIndex Buzz score dropped from 12 to 4. The Buzz score measures how consumers respond to the question, "If you've heard anything about the brand in the last two weeks, through advertising, news or word of mouth, was it positive or negative?" and can range from 100 to -100. 

According to YouGov BrandIndex CEO Ted Marzilli, "Consumer perception dropped almost immediately. That would indicate the announcement has had a negative impact on Starbucks, and might indicate a negative impact on sales in the near term."

Most interestingly, Marzilli noted that while Starbucks has seen its Buzz score drop before in connection with initiatives that have political overtones, this time Starbucks' announcement negatively affected its purchase consideration numbers, signaling that perhaps the calls for a boycott were indeed resonating with some Starbucks customers.

Starbucks says "wait a minute"

Not surprisingly, Starbucks felt compelled to respond to headlines suggesting that its brand was hurt by its announcement. On March 10, the company issued a press release detailing how Kantar Millward Brown, a market research firm, found no evidence that the announcement had any negative impact whatsoever.

The press release quoted a letter from Brian James, Kantar Millward Brown's Brand and Communications practice president, which stated: "Following the recent release of results from a YouGov Brand Index Survey, several news organizations have reported that Starbucks is suffering from consumer backlash related to its announcement to hire 10,000 refugees globally over the next five years.

"Such backlash or declines are not substantiated in our own measurement of Starbucks Brand Health and Consumer Sentiment.  Kantar Millward Brown has conducted on-going monthly measurement of Starbucks Brand Perceptions and Consumer Sentiment toward the Brand and saw no such impact in February 2017.  

"In fact, in February 2017 — after the announcement — we did not observe any substantive impact on Customer Consideration, Future Visitation Intent or Brand Perceptions or any other key performance metrics for the Starbucks brand.

So who should we believe?

It's reasonable to be somewhat skeptical about Kantar Millward Brown's findings. A cynic would suggest that because Kantar Millward Brown works for Starbucks, it is biased. But even if that's not a totally legitimate or fair argument, it's interesting to note that no actual figures for the firm's "Starbucks Brand Health and Consumer Sentiment" were released.

While Starbucks would likely cite the confidential nature of such figures, if the company is going to issue a press release promoting the fact that a market research firm it hired "did not observe any substantive impact" following an announcement that was heard around the world, refuting an independent source that did provide actual numbers, it's not unfair to suggest that Starbucks should have provided more data and details of its methodology.

At the same time, it's worth considering the possibility that YouGov's data might not paint the most accurate picture of sentiment either.

While the firm says that BrandIndex data is "nationally representative of adults in each country," its data is gathered by "interview[ing] thousands of people from its panel of 2.5m people worldwide online." For comparison, Starbucks serves more than 60m customers per week, so tracking sentiment accurately for the brand based on daily polls of just thousands of consumers seems fraught with challenges.

At the end of the day, Starbucks offers an interesting case study that demonstrates just how difficult it is to, with any confidence, take the temperature of consumers.

This doesn't mean that sentiment analysis isn't worthwhile, but as more and more businesses are implored to invest in it, particularly as part of their social media investments, companies should remember that ultimately, there's no substitute for keeping a close eye on basic KPIs like revenue and store traffic.

Patricio Robles

Published 23 March, 2017 by Patricio Robles

Patricio Robles is a tech reporter at Econsultancy. Follow him on Twitter.

2646 more posts from this author

You might be interested in

Comments (2)

Pete Austin

Pete Austin, Founder and Author at Fresh Relevance

Don't forget the marketing strategy of, "throwing a dead cat on the table": bring up an issue you want to talk about that draws widespread attention from the populace, forcing opponents to talk about your new issue instead of the previous issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynton_Crosby

There's not been much criticism of Starbucks' tax status, their previous PR problem, since the announcement to hire 10,000 refugees, so maybe the impact was positive overall.

over 1 year ago

Avatar-blank-50x50

Davide Pitzolu, Managing Director at Last Minute Sotto Casa

In my experience, it's becoming more complicated to trust companies that base their findings on interviews.
In fact their data are not representative of the population, but representative of a very specific group of people that accepts to be interviewed and that, in my experience, is not representative of the whole population who normally doesn't give a damn about anything and base their knowledge on neighbors chat (that's basically how Trump won).
If I have to make a bet I'd say that there was no real impact and trust Kantar Millward Brown's findings. Main reason being that the average Starbucks customer does not read any news site and so he hasn't even heard of the announcement.

over 1 year ago

Comment
No-profile-pic
Save or Cancel
Daily_pulse_signup_wide

Enjoying this article?

Get more just like this, delivered to your inbox.

Keep up to date with the latest analysis, inspiration and learning from the Econsultancy blog with our free Digital Pulse newsletter. You will receive a hand-picked digest of the latest and greatest articles, as well as snippets of new market data, best practice guides and trends research.