"30 to 40 yuan a cup of coffee" actually has a problem, quite a sense of "you thick eyebrows and big eyes have also defected".
Text | Ma Yubao
Edit | Wang Zhuojiao
Starbucks apologized.
On December 13, two Starbucks stores in Wuxi were exposed to using expired ingredients and employees tampering with shelf life, pointing out food safety problems.
Subsequently, the Wuxi market regulator issued an announcement that the preliminary verification of the relevant enterprises has changed the internal control period of food raw materials and used raw materials beyond the internal control period, and has instructed the two stores involved to close down for rectification, and conducted administrative interviews with Starbucks (China) Northeast China.
That night, Starbucks China issued an apology expressing "deep shock" and acknowledging that the two stores involved in Wuxi "did have operational irregularities." The two stores involved have closed for investigation and rectification, and all Starbucks stores Chinese mainland immediately launched a comprehensive self-inspection of the implementation of food safety standards.
Within one day, from exposure to the intervention of the regulatory party, and then to the measures taken by the parties involved, the response was rapid, the transmission attention was high, and the impact was extensive.
At the moment, the discussion on social networks continues. The basic argument continues Starbucks's "shock" in the announcement, but more people's "unexpected" seems to be not only that "Starbucks has a problem", but also that "30 to 40 yuan a cup of coffee" actually has a problem. There is a feeling that "your thick eyebrows and big eyes have also defected".
The saying of "good quality and low price" has indeed slowly lost its market in today's consumption environment of "buying right to buy expensive". For the food industry, expensive means good ingredients, good taste, and good environment, which are all parts that can be intuitively experienced. For this part of the experience plus brand effect, consumers are often willing to pay a higher premium.
A cup of coffee, ranging from 30 to 40, compared with some domestic coffee brands of the same category, the price of Starbucks is not cheap. Is it worth it? Customers have their own judgment, but one important point is that people who choose Starbucks will most likely not have too many concerns about their food safety.
Because food safety is the most basic level, compared to a pleasant environment, its priority, although important, is often part of the "background operation" and has been agreed. Most people's cognitive judgments about things and people are often from the local point, and then spread to the whole, when some highlights are eye-catching enough, it is enough for people to give label judgments based on perceptual cognition.
In recent years, from the development of domestic Starbucks, it can be seen that the market recognizes this brand. According to the financial report, in the third quarter of this year, Starbucks China same-store sales increased by 19%, and transaction volume increased by 30%. Starbucks has opened 162 new stores in China, with a total of more than 5,000 stores reaching 5,135. Its My Starbucks Rewards 90-day active users have reached 17 million, an increase of 71% year-on-year.
As the world's largest coffee chain brand, Starbucks says it has set and strictly implemented the gold standard for food safety based on the highest standards in the industry. Such a definition, under normal circumstances, is a bold claim, but when the time comes to go wrong, it becomes a weapon to destroy credit. More importantly, no matter how much gold the "gold standard" contains, as long as it is caught once, this standard will be self-defeating.
The high profile on the outside will turn into an inward blade.
When customers see Starbucks' glamorous "face" and solemn promises, they will naturally extend to its exquisite "Lizi". But the same thinking path will also be copied - after seeing the two stores in Wuxi do this, it will naturally expand to other stores across the country. The two stores are good to rectify, but the reputation impact and bad impression caused by this will obviously not fade quickly with time.
After the incident, Starbucks also gave a series of rectification measures. Self-inspections will expand from one city to the whole country, and all stores will also increase the frequency and scope of raids from within and third parties, but a key point is that Starbucks does not give the deep reason why the accident occurred. This, however, is the question of many people, and it is also directly related to people's long-term evaluation of it.
After all, the most fundamental reason for modifying the date or selling snacks every other day is to save costs. But with so many customers, so many stores, and such a profitable company, is it necessary to calculate so finely, even disregard food safety and disregard for the wind? Is this an isolated case, or is it just the part of the iceberg that has surfaced? Has the way it evaluates directly operated stores and the incentive mechanism of stores played a role in fueling the situation?
But there are no answers. Starbucks's approach is that where there is a problem, I will solve it. You have to ask why, sorry, no reason. The reason is that we were wrong, sorry.
But is there a next time? If so, will it be discovered next time? If there are new employees to apply, will you assume that they are "undercover" journalists? How do you prove that you have indeed put food safety in place? We can't say that we can see the real chapter on products and services, ah, not expired or expired for a day, coffee "old food" can not drink ah.
Perhaps, only one thing is certain, that is, I recently went to Starbucks for coffee and was more at ease than before the incident. But how long this time can last is probably a new question.
END