Although there is no clear evidence of Starbucks
collusion, but we can guess it employs strategies to discourage competitors
to directly compete. Think about, how many coffee places we know within our
own city? Maybe 3 or 4, and Starbucks is mostly one of them. So why is
it this way? Starbucks is continually sending soft signals but providing
good quality of product with excellent service which is consistent almost every
Starbucks store. Other food-chain competitors such as McDonalds and Dunkin are focused
on food items and Coffee as side item, whereas for Starbucks Coffee is the main
product and even Starbucks not trying to enter food market whole heartily.
Starbucks strategy about food is just to offer minimum options with just enough
food which would go along coffee. This strategy might not be threating to
McDonalds or Dunkin, because as food is side items for Starbucks, Coffee is
side item for them.
Although this non-forcible market co-operation
working well for these companies, but this really limits options for the
customers. For better food options, someone will look for better food chains or
local stores, but for better quality they must to go Starbucks or some local
coffee shop which is serving at par or better coffee with similar or less price
than Starbucks. For e.g. in Memphis, French Truck coffee is one such local
vendor for quality coffee. But they are not available at all places like
Starbucks.
Comments
Post a Comment