The business relationship between Starbucks and Kraft Foods was formed in 1998 when the companies struck a contract deeming Kraft the exclusive provider of Starbucks’ packaged coffee and thus limiting Starbucks’ selling flexibility. The partnership was strong and profitable for twelve years, which resulted in a sales increase from $50 million to $500 million in 2010. Consequently, because of this growth and the popularity spike in coffee pods, Starbucks wanted additional selling flexibility. As a result, in August of 2010, Starbucks offered to buy Kraft out for $750 million, however Kraft refused declaring that the offer was well below fair market value. Despite the refusal, Starbucks dissolved the relationship and the companies engaged in a feuded negotiation they could not settle on their own. Thus in 2013, an arbitrator determined that Starbucks breached its contract and therefore had to pay Kraft $2.75 billion. In the following sections, we further explore the negotiation between Starbucks and Kraft Foods, and make comprehensive recommendations as to how both parties could have performed more satisfactorily (nytimes.com).
In this case, there were numerous issues “on the table” that the companies needed to address. For example, the principal issue was to determine which company was responsible for the contract breach; Starbucks claimed that Kraft failed to successfully promote the brands in grocery stores whereas Kraft argued that Starbucks deliberately and improperly terminated the agreement. Additionally, Kraft accused Starbucks of undermining the sales of Kraft Tassimo machines prior to the vital holiday season. Once responsibility was attributed, the next issue that needed to be considered was whether or not to enforce a pe...
... middle of paper ...
...if it had done so in this case (Reily).” Due to the difficult nature of a partnership, it is essential that business partners engage in interest-based decision making, which may lead to more beneficial results. Too often parties execute rights or power-based techniques, only creates conflict for both sides. Also, how one party treats the other dictates the success of a business partnership, "Licensing – especially at the scale of the Kraft-Starbucks deal – is really about partnership, and the more time you spend studying your agreement and looking for loopholes in its language, the farther you may be getting from what made it (or could make it) a success (Reily).” Although Kraft could be classified as the winner of this negotiation, more value could have been created or "won" for both parties rather than Starbucks owing Kraft and a forever dissolved partnership.
In 2002, unexpected findings of a market research showed problems regarding customer satisfaction and brand meaning for Starbucks customers. The situation was unacceptable for a company whose overall objective is to build the most recognized and respected brand in the world. Starbucks was supposed to represent a new and different place where any man would relax and enjoy quality time, alone or with others. But the market research showed that in the mind of the consumers, Starbucks brand is viewed as corporative, trying to expand endlessly and looking to make lots of money. This huge gap between customers' perception and Starbucks' values and goals called for immediate action.
Emphasis on quality, Starbucks Experience, brand image, and important suppliers to dispute lower price contributions to competitors hence increasing profits
The founders of Keurig Inc. created the company to develop an innovative technique which allows customers to brew one perfect cup of gourmet coffee at a time. In this case, the CEO Nick Lazaris along with the other leaders of Keurig Inc. must determine how to successfully enter the at-home-market for use at customers’ homes, while maintaining a healthy relationship with Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. (GMCR) and Van Houtte. GMCR and Van Houtte are two of the company’s main roaster partners that own a 70% stake in Keurig, so they want the business to succeed but are a little apprehensive about the company’s marketing and pricing strategies.
For one of my selections for buying stock, I invested into Starbucks, this company has attracted me with their wonders of different coffees, and I knew many others were interested in the very popular coffee company. Starbucks all started 1971 in Seattle Washington. With three men which were Jerry Baldwin, Zev Siegel and Gordon Bowker each of them put in one thousand three hundred and fifty dollars along with a barrowed five thousand from the bank to start up there small coffee shop in pick place market, witch is located in down town Seattle. The name for this company was inspired from the character Starbuck from Moby Dick; this character was a coffee lover. There close friend designed there well known logo. These men never thought of this small company to get large they just thought of it as a small coffee shop. Out of all three men Siegel was the only one that work at it full time. The men depened on a man named Alfred Peet for there coffee beans but soon then started there own blends of coffee beans. With in a year opening the first store they were able to open a second store. When the 1980’s rolled around, it was a thriving company, in the Seattle area. However, the co-founders began to have other interests and were involved in other careers simultaneously. Despite that, the company was about to undergo a major turning point. A man by the name of Howard Schultz started to pursue an interest in the company. He noticed that the coffee shop had a wonderful environment. He started asking a questions and becoming more and more interested by every moment. He loved how the founders had so much knowledge on the coffee and each blend. In 1982, Schultz became director of retail operation. This was just the start to a new phase with the company.
In terms of machinery or technological suppliers, suppliers to the restaurant industry enjoy moderate power, as suppliers are few. This applies to suppliers of coffee, latte and espresso machinery as well due to the small number of organizations servicing the industry. Due to their success in differentiating themselves as providers of premium coffee, Starbucks faces little bargaining power from their customers around the globe. However, a lesson from their entry into the Chinese market has been that an organization needs to clearly understand their target consumers and price their products accordingly to avoid demand challenges.
BR was sold to Delta Foods in 1996 for US $2 billion. At this time, it was one of the largest fast-food chains in the world generating sales of US $6.8 billion. DF purchase of BR brought in a new cultural paradigm. DF is an individualistic, aggressive growth company with brands they believe are strong enough to support entry into new overseas markets without the need for local partnership. The DF strategy is one of direct acquisition and JV’s were not part of their strong suit. DF strategic implementation is based on hiring local managers directly or transferring seasoned managers from their soft drink and snack food divisions. The DF disdain for JVs is clearly reflected by their participation in only those JVs where local partnering was mandatory (e.g. China) to overcome regulatory barriers to entry. JVs had been the predominant strategy for BR which was unlike the DF outlook. Terralumen’s strategy was misaligned and out of sync with the DF strategy. This was unlike the complementarity that existed with BR’s strategy. This misalignment began to affect the JV relationship that had worked well with BR in the initial years. The failure of Terralumen and DF to recognize this fundamental cultural difference between their operational strategy styles i.e. Individualistic and Collectivism leads to their inability to proactively create steps for better alignment in the early period after acquisition, creating uncertainties and difficulties for both corporations. There is a lack of communication and virtually absence of trust between two new partners. DF appeared to be flexing its muscles in the relationship and using a more masculine approach compared to Terralumen’s more feminine approach. Both the corporations are strategically involved in a complex situation where they appear reluctant to address the issues at stake and move ahead together. The DF strategy of
Starbucks not only shapes a defined importance on its product, the coffee, but also the relationships on its partners, its customers and its shareholders to create diversity, “to create a place where each of us can be ourselves” (Starbucks Coffee), to treat all related partners with dignity and respect at the greatest corporate level. In this sense, Starbucks involves its customers, its neighbors and is shareholders to participate in the community to “be a force for positive action—bringing together [its] partners, customers, and the community to contribute every day (Starbucks Coffee).
Starbucks Coffee, Tea, and Spice opened its first store in April 1971 in the Pike Place Market in Seattle, by owners who had a passion for dark-roasted coffee that was popular in Europe, but hard to find in the U.S. (Harrison et al., 2005; Venkatraman & Nelson, 2008). The company’s mission was to provide Seattle with the best access to dark-roasted coffee, and sought to educated customers about the product. As a matter of customer education and acceptance of the product, Starbucks grew and expanded into the successful domestic market it is today. Much of this success can be attributed to a focus on the total customer experience and s...
With a council in place and clear ethical guidelines established, we are sure that Starbucks will reconsider its current position on coffee trademarks and make way for new and improved trade between us and the whole world.
Koehn, N.F., Besharov, M.A., & Miller, K. (2008). Starbucks Coffee Company in the 21st Century. [Case study]. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Starbucks case study: background 1971-87; private company 1987-92. (1997). McGraw-Hill Companies. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from the McGraw-Hill Companies website: http://www.mhhe.com/business/management/thompson/11e/case/starbucks-1.html
Starbucks Financial Analysis Company Overview Starbucks is the world’s largest specialty coffee retailer, with more than 16,000 retail outlets in more than 35 countries. Starbucks owns more than 8,500 of its outlets, while licensees and franchisees operate more than 6,500 units worldwide, primarily in shopping centers and airports. The outlets offer coffee drinks and food items such as pastries and confections, as well as roasted beans, coffee accessories, teas and a line of compact discs. The company also owns the Seattle's Best Coffee and Torrefazione Italia coffee brands. In addition, Starbucks markets its coffee through grocery stores and licenses its brand for other food and beverage products.
Despite the fact that Krispy Kreme’s same-store sales are increasing every quarter, the company is not in control of the specialty foods industry. Starbucks Coffee, Krispy Kreme’s leading competitor, has been experiencing astonishing sales that surpass even Krisp...
An article in the Seattle Post, describes the alliance that Starbucks is making to ensure that a sustainable supply of high quality of coffee is produce in Latin America. "Starbucks President and CEO Orin Smith said the alliance is partly his company's effort to pass on the "high price" of a cup of coffee to farmers." (Lee, 2004). He states that the high price enables them to pay the highest price to the farmers. Though the high prices to suppliers can demonstrate that money get to farmers with being diverted. Starbucks overall goal with this alliance is to buy 60 percent of its coffee under the standards agreed upon by 2007. "The agreement reflects the growing power of the premium coffee market and efforts to exploit it for the benefit of small farmers" (Lee, 2004).
Understanding the basic agreements and variable in the franchising process of a McDonald’s restaurant helps to shed light onto how the company has become such a global power in the food ser...