Starbucked.com - Consumer Activism is for Everyone

Certain events occurred in April of 1995 which turned a loyal Starbucks customer into an outraged consumer.

Because of the nature of the problem, and length of time gone by with no resolution by Starbucks, a national curiosity has awakened. From the onset of the problem I implored the head of Starbucks customer service to work with me to resolve the issue as best and as quickly as possible. Good things were happening and it was a bad time to have a dispute with a big company. I explained to Starbucks I had a business to run and had just written a book about a spiritual breakthrough in Eastern enlightenment through a new meaning of Western Freedom. Starbucks probably and erroneously interpreted that I had neither the time nor inclination to see this consumer complaint through to its satisfactory conclusion.

There's little doubt that it would have made life easier just to let this thing go. Instead, what followed was an activism against Starbucks that came directly from a twenty year struggle spent writing a book on the principles of human action: How does one discover and act on an inner sense of right and wrong which speaks up against existing cultural values of conformity? Society frowns upon the act of complaint as whining and selfish. Becoming consumed with a problem is negative and no one wants that. We're encouraged to move on and "Let it go." The problem with Starbucks is a reality of modern living; if the shopping experience is unpleasant perhaps we should shop elsewhere. Except that "elsewhere" is being quickly plowed under by big business and somewhere along the line it became convenient to accept the fact that most big companies don't have to care. To this day Starbucks has yet to act with any genuine interest in resolving the matter, and so the problem has continued to grow, attracting increasing national attention.

These are the facts of the case:

In April of '95 I purchased an expensive Starbucks espresso machine for $299. The machine was found to be defective almost immediately. The second replacement machine was just as defective. These things happen. Meanwhile, having faith this would be corrected, I purchased another new Starbucks espresso machine for $189. This was a wedding gift for a friend who had just recovered from cancer. For reasons unknown the sales clerk who sold me the machine was rude, then decidedly refused to hand over the free half pound of coffee given with every purchase of a Starbucks espresso machine. I suppose these things also happen. When my friend opened her wedding gift she discovered parts were missing, there was rust in it, the manual was gone and it appeared used. After several unsuccessful conversations with Starbucks store employees directed towards resolving this, I finally contacted Starbucks Seattle headquarters, Customer Service. They'd straighten this out. Again I explained things, emphasizing that my main concern was the situation with the wedding gift. It had a certain meaning because of the circumstances of my friend's recovery from cancer. The gifts' intent was to make the person feel special, though because of the machine's condition special feelings were unlikely. This wasn't what I'd seen in the Starbucks ads.

Nevertheless, nothing had happened that couldn't be fixed: and then came the problem -- Starbucks' reaction. I proposed that Starbucks replace my defective espresso machine for a third time. Next, that they send the bride a letter of apology and that for all the trouble, Starbucks send her an upgrade model espresso machine. Starbucks considered this then began to haggle in an attempt to persuade me to accept a $269 replacement for my $299 machine. Starbucks would apply the $30 difference to their cost on upgrading the bride's $189 machine for a $269 model. My $30 was at or around Starbucks' cost difference for upgrading the bride's machine. It seemed I'd be paying for Starbucks mistakes while the coffee giant would save $30 and prevent any financial loss. The situation was a matter of profit. As long as I was pouring money into Starbucks things were fine. I told Starbucks this wasn't a fitting solution to the problem and that I was going to put my foot down and draw the line. This wasn't the right stuff. Starbucks wasn't listening or didn't care or both. And I wanted to change that. I told Starbucks that if they wouldn't listen perhaps others would, and that if necessary I was prepared to take out an ad in the Wall Street Journal soliciting other "Starbucked" customers to call in on a toll free line. Starbucks said they were "Sorry I felt that way."

Several days later on May 5th the first ad appeared as promised. The following week on May 10th a second ad appeared in the same national newspaper and by this time the public and media had begun to respond with astounding interest. On May 13th, three days after the second ad of May 10th, two packages arrived from Starbucks for the bride and me. Their contents included a refund, an apology and gifts valued at $200. The cost of the ads was many thousands of dollars and resulted in a following of public support and media response. The Starbucks packages were refused as too little too late. Since that time Starbucks has done nothing despite extensive efforts to get them to realize how serious a problem this had become, and still is. What's difficult to explain is why Starbucks, who from the beginning had multiple opportunities to correct the problem, chose not to. Equally perplexing is how far I had to go just to get starbucks to respond. In each instance, Starbucks' reaction was always far behind my efforts. For instance, Starbucks does nothing until thousands of dollars were spent in ads to get their attention. Starbucks then responded with $200 in gifts weeks later. What led Starbucks to believe I would think $200 in gifts was the answer to a problem which was initially ignored, then followed by an expensive ad campaign protesting their bad products and service? Moreover, why should I have had to call Starbucks in the first place? Why didn't they call me once they knew of the problem? Why didn't they offer an apology and help? Why, in fact, didn't Starbucks initially call at any point and simply acknowledge and fix the problem? These questions Starbucks never answered, but to this day when questioned by the press Starbucks maintains that their reaction to this problem was "The finest attempts in customer service."

Starbucks refused to respond to the original problem, but finally responded to public ads, media interest and consumer involvement. The nature and degree of the damage had evolved but for inexplicable reasons Starbucks refused to acknowledge the time, money, and effort that went in to the solicitation of public interest which it took to get them to respond at all. Is this how it should be, and what of the Starbucks customers who are unwilling or unable to go to such ends to get consumer justice?

This kind of consumer problem has become increasingly common, though consumers' willingness to pursue the problem to such ends does not seem to have increased. Domestic and global economic evolution are inevitable as companies get bigger, merge and grab larger market share. There are solutions to these problems but not without first recognizing the problem.

I realize that most people would have forgotten about such misfortunes and moved on . I've done so myself many times. But not this time. Too many large and growing companies disregard the customers interest. But unless someone, sometime says "not this time!" What will become of consumer based values?