By
now you guys have probably heard the hoopla about Starbucks' proposed
#RaceTogether campaign to encourage customers and baristas to have frank
discussions about race issues. Maybe the idea was noble, but the
communication and execution left much to be desired, obviously. It comes
off as out-of-touch, know-it-all, do-gooder, liberal Seattle rich white
men telling the rest of America how to fix its racial issues (without
doing any actual work themselves). Or even more cynical, some claim it
is a shameless marketing ploy to capitalize on recent racial events like
Ferguson to boost their brand and sales among minorities (a demo that
is not core to Starbucks).
I will try to avoid getting too deep in the weeds here, but just some points to consider:- By focusing on race, Starbucks is unfairly putting the spotlight on their black-Latino employees and customers, who will likely need to play a larger role in the discussion. Why not name the campaign #Tolerance or #MoreUnderstanding, which is the end goal of #RaceTogether but could apply more broadly to any injustice or misunderstanding (like sexuality, religion, and poverty)?
- If Starbucks expects its relatively low income and low education baristas to participate in complex race discussions, will they at least give them a raise and professional training? They were not hired on to do this job, so if they get new responsibilities, they should be compensated accordingly.
- Why not set aside a corner of their cafes for employees on break and customers to sit down and talk about issues, race or otherwise, in a more appropriate environment? It's obviously problematic to expect stressed baristas and impatient customers to engage in meaningful discussions during the morning rush, when all they want is their cup of overpriced Joe and to get on with their day (many comedians have touched on this point).
- Instead of punting this issue to their baristas, why doesn't Starbucks' leadership actually lead by example? Their exec team and board are almost uniformly white upper-class men, even for Seattle standards. And that's probably why they OK'ed such a half-baked campaign. Did they consult minority groups and race studies experts beforehand? How about they improve the diversity programs within their org, and pay for professionals to hold race discussions among their workforce and customers, when they won't interfere with their core business operations?
- Starbucks almost has no commercial presence in majority-minority neighborhoods like Ferguson and Harlem (for obvious business reasons, not necessarily racism). If they just want to have race discussions between their 20-something urban baristas and their mostly white yuppie clientele, I am not sure how much good that will do for our society and their company. Magic Johnson franchised many Starbucks in "less desirable" neighborhoods in SoCal, and recently sold them back to Starbucks. So that is a step in the right direction, but it was only because Magic took a chance and demonstrated to Corporate HQ that such cafes could be profitable (Seattle never wanted to expand into Compton on their own). But if Starbucks really cares about inclusion and social change, why is their brand and product so selectively targeted? Heck, even their #RaceTogether print ads were only depicting white hands holding coffee cups (which is about representative of their customer base - do you think many Ferguson folks can afford daily $4 frappucinos?).
- Bottom line: if Starbucks wants to make a positive impact on race relations in America, they have the resources and influence to actually do it. But they'll need to invest seriously, fix their own house first, consult people who actually know what they're doing, and lead by example - not just pass the buck to their lowest workers while the leaders in their ivory tower pat themselves on the back.
No comments:
Post a Comment