« Classic... | Main | BYOB - November 18 »
November 17, 2007
Getting Out Of The Box
Two front page stories in the Wall Street Journal this weekend really caught my eye. First, there was the story of how Alex Rodriguez is on the Verge of resigning with the Yankees for more money than ever in history by taking his agent – the most powerful in the business – out of the negotiations and using relationships that he shares with Yankee management and which are respected by both sides.
Second was a story on Starbucks launching television ads for the first time… and the question of whether that is a major risk as the company moves into the future. Will a company that has thrived in an amazing way as a viral business, building a market and an empire without ever spending the marketing dollars that more companies feel compelled to, ruin it by doing what the other businesses do? By defining Starbucks in ads, will they alienate the imagination the world has expended on the company as it has grown?
These are both such HUGE lessons on breaking the mold, its benefits and dangers. And both can easily be applied to the film business. These are both major businesses. Starbucks is a multi-bullion dollar company and A-Rod is looking at a $275 million contract… almost enough to make and market a comic book movie. Both deals involve corporate culture, risks taken, and short-term failure (Starbucks sales are down slightly in the last quarter and A-Rod was told by the Yanks that after he walked on his last contract, they were out of the race to hire him, even though he wanted to stay).
If Starbucks is risking it by advertising, is movie marketing just as risky to the future of a film. Should studios be considering alternative formulas to the machine that pushes out movies each weekend? Should distribution chiefs be breaking out of the normal system to give more specialized attention to certain titles?
And as we wander through the desert of the WGA Strike, is there an answer out there that means throwing out traditional bargaining notions. In all the complexity of it, is there a simple answer that may be wrong, but which will shift the game to something that is right?
Clinging to tradition can keep a company powerful for a long, long time… and it can sink the entire ship. There is comfort in repetition. And it’s not just a posture. That comfort can be the right answer. Or it may not. Everything is always on the table in life, aside from the absolute morality of some. Or in the classic words of Ron Shelton, spoken by Rosie Perez:
“Sometimes when you lose you actually win and sometimes when you win you actually lose, and sometimes when you win or lose you actually tie, and sometimes when you tie you actually win or lose.”
Posted by poland at November 17, 2007 06:12 PM
Comments
How 'bout A-Rod appearing in Starbucks' commercials?...
Posted by: mutinyco ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 17, 2007 06:35 PM
not sure i agree with the wsj's statement that 'now, for the first time it's rolling that brand out on national tv'.....starbucks has been running tv ads for it's packaged goods ('frappacino' and the incredibly addictive 'sureshot') for a couple of years and, by association, the stores have benefited...... sooooooooo, i don't really think any ground is being broken here....it actually seems like it might be a ploy to charge franchise owners (ARE THERE franchise owners?) more money.....that's just a cynical speculation but might be worth looking into......
Posted by: scooterzz at November 17, 2007 06:42 PM
perfect, all we need are starbucks commercials. having them on every street corner isn't enough for them? over-priced and awful tasting coffee has captured the "imagination" of its customers?? their customers have no imagination -- they're drones, thats why they go and waste their money there. Find a local coffee shop and support that instead. I'm angry tonight. i apologize for this rant folks.
Posted by: Aris P at November 17, 2007 07:15 PM
I love the people who hate Starbucks. It's a coffee shop. Coffee. What do you want it to do, end the war on terror?
Posted by: brack at November 17, 2007 09:43 PM
I would love it if they just made a good cup of coffee. :)
Posted by: Noah at November 17, 2007 10:13 PM
I hope you just don't get regular coffee at Starbucks. That stuff is bad. At least the "free coffee" days are. On the very, very rare occasion that I make it to Starbucks, I like a venti quad caramel macchiato, which is very good.
Posted by: brack at November 17, 2007 10:47 PM
brack - it's a BAD cup of overpriced coffee, to answer your question. nothing about terror. just about coffee. 4 bucks for shit. a jug of nescafe that costs 7 bucks from costco tastes better.
Posted by: Aris P at November 17, 2007 10:53 PM
It's coffee. Coffee is supposed to be special? Really? Nevertheless; Heat really did think out the box on this one. It's a brand new world with old dudes and dudettes, that refuse to see it that way. Once they wake up. It should get interesting. Until then... wakka wakka wakka.
Posted by: IOIOIOI at November 17, 2007 11:16 PM
"You always know when white people are moving back into the neighborhood, because they open up a Starbucks, and no brother is stupid enough to pay four bucks for a cup of coffee."--Steven Williams on LINC'S (a great show cancelled too soon)
Posted by: Cadavra at November 18, 2007 11:29 AM
One could argue that Starfucks gets ad time incessantly seeing how it's the corporate coffee of choice in TV and film.
And it actually is a little more than coffee. Look upon it as a metaphor for the continued homogenization of a rapidly dying culture of conformity. So there.
Posted by: christian at November 19, 2007 01:32 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)