Starbucks' self-harming PR

Starbucks, which has been doing bad things for a long time, has failed again.

Their self-destructive behavior is not just about "driving away the police", their public relations tactics are also very stupid in my opinion.

This negative public opinion was created by Starbucks due to its own continuous mistakes.

The police officer’s complaints on WeChat Moments were moved to Weibo. At first, they didn’t receive much attention, and there weren’t many comments or likes, which was not enough to become a hot topic on the entire Internet.

But after all, the police were notified, and big brands became anxious when they saw such negative news. Starbucks chose to inform the public the next day, which was not wrong, but the method of informing was a bit stupid.

Take a look at their comment section, it’s full of curses, because from a crisis public relations perspective, this statement has serious problems.

I am considered a loyal customer of Starbucks, but I didn’t know about this before. But after Starbucks responded like this, now everyone knows about it.

Let me summarize the three main points of this statement:

Sorry about this; it was just a misunderstanding (we are not wrong); hope for your continued support.

It seems to be the trilogy of traditional public relations, but it is absolutely suicidal in today's Internet environment.

This statement is so low-level and full of loopholes that it blames the customers and only brings trouble upon itself:

The first question is, since the police officers are arranged by the store, coordinating their positions is untenable. Since they have been arranged, is there any difference whether they consume or not?

The second question is, asking the police to give up their seats because of “other customers” means that the consuming customers are the masters. Is this a euphemistic way of saying “drive away”? You are running a business, how can you say such things?

The third question is, "communication misunderstanding caused by inappropriate words" when the store and the police were coordinating. This scope is too broad. What was wrong? What was the misunderstanding? Was there discrimination or insult? Or was it really "affecting the brand image" as the person involved complained?

If what is said above is true, then Starbucks should reflect on its corporate culture and employee training.

But the problem is that Starbucks' statement does not show any reflection or apology. It seems more like an attempt to seek justice for itself and to shift the blame to "other customers."

In fact, where is the biggest spark of public opinion among netizens? It's all about attitude.

Your attitude is what everyone is most concerned about, but you did not express your opinion. Instead, you avoided the important issues and spoke vaguely. You did not care about the concerns of netizens, so you were pushed to the forefront of public opinion.

I thought Starbucks would shift the blame to the staff and store manager, but I didn't expect Starbucks to be so stupid and shameless that it would directly shift the blame to the customers, defend itself, and try to clear itself of all responsibility.

This will certainly intensify the anger of netizens, and even People's Daily has expressed its position. The situation escalated again yesterday. It was said that some people placed wreaths and threw eggs directly at the store involved.

Of course, I don’t support using such actions to express anger, but I really can’t believe that this is public relations done by a brand like Starbucks.

I really suspect that Starbucks' crisis public relations manager was sent by its competitors.

Maybe Starbucks can learn a little bit from Haidilao’s public relations.

A few years ago, a Haidilao store was exposed to have hygiene issues, and the undercover video quickly went viral after it was circulated.

Haidilao responded quickly and conducted a textbook crisis public relations campaign.

Haidilao's statement

The first step is to admit the mistake: the problem is real;

The second step is no nonsense: we make changes and make corrections seriously;

The third step is to take responsibility and list the handling and corrective measures.

Look at him, he took the initiative to take the blame, without trying to pass it on or making excuses. If you wanted to criticize him again, you wouldn't know what words to use.

In addition, it took Haidilao only three hours from the time the incident was exposed to the time it apologized.

What does this speed mean? The incident had just begun to ferment, and the media had not yet finished writing their articles criticizing it, when the latest developments came out, and it seemed meaningless for others to continue criticizing it.

Haidilao’s public trust crisis was resolved in this way.

Starbucks, on the other hand, didn’t learn anything and spent 20 hours preparing for the final meal.

We have said that a qualified apology statement has at least the following four elements:

First, the description of the event: it must be objective and concise, without ambiguity or innuendo;

The second is the action measures: what actions have been taken by the brand, what are the investigation conclusions and handling results;

The third is attitude expression: take the initiative to admit mistakes, don’t evade the main issue, and don’t play word games. If you are wrong, you are wrong;

Fourth, make a commitment: be responsible for your own actions, welcome supervision, and ultimately let the public see your attitude.

Sometimes if you have the right attitude and take the right actions, a bad thing can turn into a good thing. If you can use crisis public relations to do mass marketing, you are a master.

The essence of crisis public relations is the management of public emotions, especially in the era of mobile Internet, when only emotions can guide emotions.

Looking back at Starbucks' move, it has nothing to do with the above four points. It was originally a simple issue, but they had to play word games, tease public emotions, and force netizens to rub you to the ground.

That's fine, but a Starbucks employee said: "The trending searches on Weibo actually have no impact on the operations of other stores, at least our own store."

A typical case of "doing nothing but getting yourself killed", he made himself a hot topic, and then attracted a lot of criticism to drown himself, and was beaten by public opinion.

Nag a little more.

Just as the "driving away police officers" incident had not yet subsided, Starbucks announced a price increase yesterday and was criticized again.

"I don't like it. It's expensive and tastes bad. Many independent coffee shops crush it."

"Instead of giving a sincere apology to the police officer who was driven away, you're still raising the price? Anyway, I won't drink it."

Starbucks wants to use price increases to boost profits and thus support the stock market, but price increases are not a life-saving straw.

Starbucks is facing a mid-life crisis. It's time to put away your arrogance and that sense of superiority that comes from nowhere.

Author: Zhen Miao

Source: Zhen Miao