Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz pledged to boycott political donations and help boost the economy by creating more jobs. While brands usually stay politically neutral, some experts say this move could help Starbucks' marketing. Schultz called on CEOs to focus on job creation rather than political infighting. This non-partisan stance reflects positively on Starbucks' brand by filling a perceived leadership vacuum. Starbucks' image as aspirational also meshes well with Schultz's policy stance, allowing the company a rare opportunity to connect with consumers on a public issue. However, some experts believe the announcement will have little consumer or brand impact and could be seen as mere political rhetoric.

1. Starbucks Gets Political, Could Win Marketing Points
By Christine Birkner, staff writer
cbirkner@ama.org
Starbucks got plenty of media buzz last month when CEO Howard Schultz pledged to boycott
political donations and help boost the economy by creating more jobs. Brands usually strive to
stay politically neutral, but in this case, some experts say the Seattle-based coffee behemoth
could be making a wise marketing play.
In an e-mail to corporate leaders and the CEOs of stock exchanges NYSE Euronext and Nasdaq
OMX Group, Schultz called for a boycott on campaign contributions to President Obama and
members of Congress in an attempt to get them to focus more on creating jobs and stop political
infighting, according to a report by Bloomberg. Schultz also said that Starbucks would work to
boost job creation and asked other CEOs to do the same.
The contentious political climate makes Schultz’s crusade a noble one and therefore reflects
positively on the Starbucks brand, says Gene Grabowski, senior vice president at Washington-
based Levick Strategic Communications, a firm that specializes in public affairs and reputation
management. “If this were ordinary times, this kind of a ploy probably wouldn’t succeed, but these
are not ordinary times. [People] are decrying the lack of leadership and looking for leaders where
they can find them. These CEOs are filling a perceived leadership vacuum … so the timing is
perfect. The Starbucks brand is a very good fit with this movement. It can only help Starbucks,”
he says.
Harris Diamond, CEO of New York-based global PR firm Weber Shandwick, who has studied the
relationship between politics and marketing, agrees. He says that Schultz “correctly tapped into a
sense of his consumers, which is that there are problems in Washington, there are problems with
the leadership. Howard Schultz is looking out for consumer interest. He’s saying politicians need
to fix these problems and they need to create jobs.” Because Schultz’s position is
noncontroversial, it should help the Starbucks brand as well, Diamond says. “It’s very political, but
it’s truly nonpartisan political. It’s good governance political.”
However, some experts say that Schultz’s statements will have little consumer or brand impact.
“His pronouncement will have between zero and no impact on their own brand. I’m not sure it will
be positive. It can be easily characterized as political rhetoric,” says Lou Rubin, CMO at New
York-based CoreBrand, a firm focused on correlating branding to financial performance.
But Starbucks’ case is unique because Schultz’s stance fits in with the coffee chain’s
aspirational image, according to Diamond. “Brands have a rare opportunity, sometimes, to mesh
with public policy issues and when they do, if you can figure out a nonpartisan way of doing it and
it fits into the image of your consumers, it’s always a great thing to do.”
For more on politics and marketing, check out the Marketing News Exclusives story, “Why Politics
and Marketing Go Hand in Hand.”
Marketing News Exclusives September 1, 2011

2. Marketing News Exclusives September 1, 2011