Here’s news about Starbuck’s new rewards program…
So, in relation to the sample research proposal from the previous students’ work that I shared with class a couple of days ago, unexpected events occur that can change the game IF competitors’ advisors or researchers or project whiz-kids are alert and can sense advantage.
As it happens last week, Starbucks has become embroiled in a massive row over a major change to its Rewards program (announced Feb 22-23), with many long-standing Starbucks clients now extremely unhappy about the change, and saying so very publicly on social media and directly to the print media. Many of the complaints include the promise/threat to break away from Starbucks and never return. Because CBTL probably could reap benefit from this or have some lesson to be learnt, right, this would be an additional consideration or factor in the project analysis and planning for Coffee Bean (vs. Starbucks).
I think this case might be relevant to “psychological reactance theory” which would tell “”grass was greener on the other side…”
The underlying logic is; once any policy change is announced people tend to strongly eager to hold on to what they’ve got or enjoyed so far rather than focusing on new benefits retained by the change. Hence, it is indicated that generous offers for the first round of social marketing to rapidly garner ppl’s attention or to raise awareness might backfire (or complainers’ voices are over-represented) at the end when you have to take it back.
What is your thoughts on this case? What could be done for Starbucks to relieve the reactance?