In a recent interview at TheGrill media and entertainment conference, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz extolled the virtues of video streaming and other proprietary media that will soon be made available via free Wi-Fi on the Starbuck Digital Network. At the end of the interview, he briefly mentions the unique opportunity that Starbucks offers as a third place in America. Offering customers more engaging content through their wireless devices while they are in the stores may well represent some unique opportunities for the content providers and consumers. However, it is likely to diminish the real-world conversation, sense of community and potential for serendipitous enlightenment that are central elements to the ideal of a third place.
Ironically, in a blog post by Josh Dickey about Schultz’ interview at The Wrap, Schultz is quoted as saying
We’ve got to completely allow ourselves to engage in conversations that we’d normally be afraid of.
As might inferred from my earlier post about the coffee, conversation, community and culture at Starbucks, I completely agree with this sentiment, and while this new network – and Starbucks’ extensive social media presence – may promote online conversations, it is likely to do so at the expense of the kinds of interactions traditionally cultivated in coffeehouses. I won’t rehash that entire earlier post, but I would like to review a bit of context about “third places”:
Ray Oldenburg has also researched the history of coffeehouse culture, extending it to other types of hangouts in his classic book, The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community. In this book, which is largely responsible for the popularization of [the notion of] the third place, Oldenburg praises the virtues of these “homes away from home” where “unrelated people relate” and “conversation is the main activity”, offering spaces wherein “the full spectrum of local humanity” can engage in “inclusive sociability” and practice an “ease of association” that is rarely found elsewhere. Oldenburg argues that such places offer individual benefits – novelty, broadening of perspective and “spiritual tonic” – as well as community benefits – fostering the development of civil society, democracy and civic engagement.
In his interview, Schultz speaks glowingly about values, guiding principles, emotional connection and customer loyalty. He talks about research showing how Starbucks customers had traditionally used Wi-Fi primarily for synching email, but increasingly use Wi-Fi in more “engaging” ways. He shows a slide highlighting the ways that Starbucks has become “a powerful force” in social media, and is clearly excited about how they will now take advantage of the unique opportunity afforded by “captive” customers in their stores. He talks about the 9 million people who have registered a Starbucks Rewards card and the potential for integrating a “national physical footprint” with a new digital network. But as far as I can tell, all these new developments will simply promote more public privatism, portable cocooning and the more effective use of devices as interaction shields through which people can be alone together and enjoy joint solitude.
All of this is all the more ironic given another video I recently watched (not in a Starbucks) – Steven Johnson’s TED talk about Where Good Ideas Come From – highlighting the importance of the “liquid networks” and serendipitous interactions in traditional coffeehouses to the evolution of innovative ideas:
The English coffee house was crucial to the development and spread of one of the great intellectual flowerings of the last 500 years, what we now call the Enlightenment … it was a space where people would get together from different backgrounds, different fields of expertise, and share [ideas] … An astonishing number of innovations from this period have a coffeehouse somewhere in their story.
I have shared positive perspectives in the past about Howard Schultz’ promotion of passion, perseverance and partnership and my own Starbucks experience. And I have written about the research and development through which I have partnered with others to design and deploy technology to promote conversation and community in coffeehouses (although this work was focused primarily on independent coffeehouses). The new Starbucks Digital Network may provide many benefits to many stakeholders – especially those in the media and entertainment industry – and I have no doubt it will promote digital engagement and perhaps even enlightenment, but it is largely incompatible with the idea of Starbucks serving as a true third place.
But who knows? Maybe someone will watch Steven Johnson’s video while sitting at a Starbucks, and decide to disengage from the Wi-Fi long enough to expose themselves to the potentially enlightening people and ideas surrounding them right there in the store.
Comments
4 responses to “The Starbucks Digital Network, Engagement, Enlightenment and Third Places”
Joe, I think you’re spot on. Coffeehouses were a social platform in their day, and the idea that Starbucks customers can sit in a physical location and focus on their virtual connections is almost inane, if you think about it too hard. No amount of buzzwords or catchphrases from Schultz can overcome this basic disconnect in his strategy.
It would be intriguing if he had ideas about using tech tools to prompt more in-store physical social interaction…perhaps some virtual identifier that let you assess who was in the place and what they wanted to talk about? Maybe outbound notices that a conversation about something topical (politics, whatever) was brewing at the nearby Starbucks and consumers might want to attend (you could opt-in to topics in which you’re interested).
I’m coming out with a book next month entitled Histories of Social Media, in which I’ll explore the mechanisms of social discourse throughout history, sans tech platforms, and try to uncover some truths about how best to architect them. Pls check out my site (little on it yet) and I’d be happy to share a copy of the book when it’s available next month: http://www.historiesofsocialmedia.com.
JSB
Jonathan: thanks for chiming in; it’s helpful to know that others are similarly concerned about [prospects for] greater disconnection and disengagement through the Starbucks Digital Network. Your use of “disconnect” in this context reminds me of some of the issues Doug Rushkoff raised in his book, Life, Inc., with respect to the ways that corporations insert themselves into our lives and [thereby] disconnect us from one another. Although I have been holding out hope that Starbucks would be different, I have to say I find this latest announcement disillusioning.
I just perused the overview and table of contents for your forthcoming book, Histories of Social Media. I’m particularly intrigued by your choice of using the plural “histories” rather than “history”.
I enjoy reading – and blogging about – great books on social media (e.g., my recent book review of Empowered, by Josh Bernoff and Ted Schadler), and would enjoy reading yours as well!
Joe, I love the ironies of which you speak. The “disconnect” is from my standpoint a fine example of not noticing and dealing with a “discrepancy” from brand. Starbucks would be different from other large organizations if it learned from the discrepancies that are called out, particularly in this case the ones that are identified on the very social media that it touts as promoting or owning. That acknowledgement could be a first step in closing the gap, and with follow-through, might build credibiilty.
That would be “living the brand” rather than simply “claiming the brand” and then missing the point.
Dan: thanks for raising the issue of claiming vs. living the brand, and for adding another “d” word – “discrepancy” – to the discussion.
Your observation is particularly interesting given my recent reading (and review) of the book, Empowered, which is about “unleashing” employees to use social media for interacting with customers. The authors highlight BestBuy and its use of @TwelpForce, a collection of 2500 retail staff employees empowered to tweet answers to customer questions.
Although @Starbucks is very active on Twitter, I believe it is the work of one person (Brad Nelson), and while lots of people post to Starbucks’ Facebook wall, I rarely see interactions or engagement by other Starbucks employees on other social media channels (and I’ve never seen an official response by anyone from Starbucks to a blog post). So perhaps “protecting the brand” would be another dimension to consider.
In any case, after watching the interview with Howard Schultz, I’m no longer sure what the Starbucks brand means. His earlier emphasis on third places had led me to believe it was, in part, about conversation and community at Starbucks. Perhaps the Starbucks Digital Network represents a pivot point for the brand.