Starbucks could be onto a corker of an idea

In the past I’ve been pretty scathing of some of café giant Starbucks’ strategic choices.

They under-estimated the sophistication of the Australian coffee market, leading to large numbers of store closures.

They have since embarked upon a pretty risky expansion into the instant coffee market, that I have argued could be cannibalisation.

But, their latest move I can see a lot of merit in.

According to this story, Starbucks is experimenting with offering wine, boutique beer and hors d’oeuvres in their cafés:

“After 4 p.m., customers will be able to order wine chosen from Pacific Northwest vineyards …and local craft brews with prices … only slightly more than a Venti specialty coffee. Appetizer inspired platters ranging from Mediterranean plates to artisan cheese plates (brie, Gouda, cheddar, almonds) and Italian selections (prosciutto, mixed olives whole wheat crackers)…will be brought to your table.”

This has only been rolled out in one store thus far, but it seems a logical and complementary fit.

It addresses a particular weak spot in their retail model – that fewer people want coffees late in the day, and thus the firm’s valuable real-estate is underutilised at a time when many shoppers are still out and about.

It also plays to the firm’s strength as a provider of  a ‘third space’ where customers feel at home. Wine and beer are clear complementary products that appeal to some of the same customers, and in group situations, will bring in some new patrons also.

The interesting challenge/opportunity for the firm, is build some sense of community and excitement around the wines and beers on offer. The focus on local producers is logical and a nice way to overcome some of the growing distrust around their ‘big business’ status (e.g. in Australia). Such a buying policy also aligns well with the fair-trade coffee approach (smaller local beer and wine labels will have lower food miles and are more likely to offer organic fare also).

Exciting  also is the prospect that some brewers and wineries might be able to substantially boost sales through signing on as suppliers to what in many locales is a vase network of stores.

Much is made of Starbucks ‘education’ of US palates – perhaps wine and beer will be next…

Advertisement

I’m clicking to Westfield

Aussie shopping centre powerhouse Westfield (the world’s biggest shopping centre operator) announced a curious brand extension last week. The firm is reportedly planning to use its website as a virtual shopping mall, hosting e-commerce interfaces for a variety of retailers (with fashion being the rumoured kick-off).

So, is this a good move for Westfield?

As I’ve argued elsewhere, Westfield has five particularly powerful competencies: (i) property selection; (ii) redevelopment; (iii) financing; (iv) retailer relations; and (v) branding and marketing . The first three have no relevance to this venture, so the firm is only left with retailer relations and branding/marketing.

Source: Daniel Austin (d)Not

The retailer relations is partially about Westfield’s capacity to offer a more extensive suite of locations relative to rivals and the resultant bargaining power they wield as a landlord. It is also about Westfield’s extensive monitoring of tenant sales and sophisticated contracting processes.

Westfield already carries some information about tenants on their website, and because of their prominent landlord status can certainly attract the attention of these firms. I would be stunned if any of the retailers would grant Westfield exclusive rights to host/direct traffic to their e-commerce portal. Indeed, e-commerce is a substitute to the physical interface, and a mechanism these retailers can use to more effectively negotiate with Westfield as a landlord. Westfield will need to tread much more carefully in these e-relationships.

The counterbalancing angle may spring from the final competency – branding/marketing. Westfield was a global pioneer of using a common brand for their malls (indeed, my post title reflects the reported source of this brainwave – a founder heard a shopper saying they were “heading to Westfields”, and saw the scope for differentiation).

It may well be the case that online shoppers welcome the ‘browsing’ capacity of a virtual Westfield mall. New/small retailers with limited capital to expand their bricks and mortar footprint across Westfield’s 119 malls, may relish being next door to Zara, The Gap and Gucci on the Westfield website. It may also be a mechanism for virtual internationalisation. This could be a chance for Aussie retailers to test the waters in the US, UK and NZ without crossing an ocean. Presumably solely e-commerce retailers could also tap into this spillover effect. Getting this right could also extend consumer awareness of Westfield beyond their current whitebread Anglo markets.

The big challenge is making the site sticky enough. Westfield will need to fill the competency gap in build a user interface that is engaging, exciting and innovative. If they don’t get it right quickly someone could easily build a rival (Google perhaps?).

The uspide for Westfield is that there isn’t much downside here. I wouldn’t think there is an enormous investment required here. It is just a mechanism to augment an already profitable business (and perhaps distract some investors from the firm’s exposure to property price and finance risk).

Verdict? Interesting experiment that could conceivably secure some first mover/network effect advantage.

Benefitting from beauty school dropouts (and graduates)

It’s always nice when a discussion from my classes quickly gets tested in the ‘real world’.

Source: http://www.npsetcosmetics.com/

A few weeks ago, as part of a discussion of diversification, I asked my students to identify related industries to various products and services. One of the services I mentioned was hairdressing, and among the suggestions was training schools for hairdressers, stylists etc.  We had a debate about whether this would also constitute vertical integration as it would serve to provide a supply of labour for firms in the industry.

In my old age, I’d forgotten an earlier blog post of mine on the diversification of Aussie make-up magnate Napoleon Perdis.

Well, Perdis popped up again in the news recently with a much more explicit discussion of the benefits to the firm’s salon franchising ambitions of also running ‘beauty schools’:

“The company should have a natural advantage in its franchising push thanks to the beauty training schools it operates. While these schools provide the company with direct source of staff and a strong network of brand advocates, they should also provide a steady stream of potential franchisees well-versed in the company’s processes and products.

“One of the biggest assets of the Academy in that it is a machine that does generate brand advocates. And it feeds itself, because the brand advocates pay to come and do courses, they purchase products and they go out there, advocating and indoctrinating others with the same fervour and passions and beliefs,” [said] Perdis…”

It really is a neat example of utilising corporate strategy to build an advantage beyond direct market-seeking.  The market for potential franchisees is tough.  Having such an effective mechanism to promote the firm (and screen franchisees) is a real boon for Perdis.