Repercussions of Starbucks’ Illusive Coffee History

By Wondwossen Mezlekia

Ethiopia is mentioned many times in Starbucks’ dictionary than in the Bible (where it is cited over 38 times by both Old and New Testaments.) Until recently, company websites and the tiny blackboards hanging in the stores used to rightly feature Ethiopia as the origin of coffee. Lately, however, the company’s coffee education web pages appear to be receding and incoherently abandoning any reference to Ethiopia. Starbucks’ love affair with the name Ethiopia seems to have come to a halt with the origin of coffee renamed as a broader region in the continent.

Today, there are three versions of coffee history adapted by Starbucks’ English language websites. The website for North America looks at the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea as the source of coffee:

“The first coffee plants are said to have come from the Horn of Africa on the shores of the Red Sea. Originally, coffee beans were taken as a food and not as a beverage. East African tribes would grind the coffee cherries together, mixing the results into a paste with animal fat. Rolled into little balls, the mixture was said to give warriors much-needed energy for battle.”

This is confusing as there are more than one country in that region including Kenya, Sudan, and Somalia. The other version of Starbucks’ coffee history appears on the company’s website targeting Japan and states that coffee has originated in Arabia by cutting off all periods preceding the introduction of the crop to the Arab merchants:

“Full of myth and mystery, the story of coffee begins hundreds of years ago in the wilds of Arabia. According to legend, a goat herder noticed that his goats became friskier than usual after consuming the red cherries of a wild shrub. Curious, he tasted the cherries himself. He was delighted by the cherries' invigorating effects - after all, the days of herding must have been long and tiring - and shared this magical discovery with the world.”

More interestingly, even the following product specific description refrains from calling Ethiopia except acknowledging Sidamo coffee as coming from the birthplace of coffee:

“From the birthplace of coffee, Sidamo is highly prized by coffee buyers from around the world. It features a fleeting, floral aroma with a bright yet soft finish and, like the best Sidamo coffees, a wonderful hint of lemon.”

Of course, a coffee company should not expected to be a custodian for world history though such companies as The Roast and Post Coffee Company stand out as exemplary for making a genuine effort to document the history of coffee. Starbucks can not be held responsible for the accuracy of or lack therein of the legends pointing to Ethiopia as the origin of coffee. Nevertheless, the company is accountable for the histrionic twist of legendary stories. Identifying coffee as originating from the Horn of Africa or East Africa is a blunt distortion as it also blends other major coffee growers in the region together. This distortion is especially significant at this moment when the public outrage over Starbucks’ actions against Ethiopia’s efforts to utilize trademarks as a tool to fight poverty is increasing.

Historically, Starbucks has traded on its relationships with poor coffee farmers around the world and especially the origins. The fact that Ethiopia is poor, and so despite being the birthplace of coffee and growing the world’s best coffees, did serve Starbucks to build a brand that is perceived by many as a symbol of goodwill.

Douglas B. Holt, Professor of Marketing at the Oxford University, said in his acclaimed analytic piece, Brand Hypocrisy at Starbucks,

“Ethiopian coffee growers serve as particularly effective symbolic material for Starbucks. As the birthplace of coffee, Ethiopia offers the most authentic coffee experience in a marketplace dominated by mass-marketed brands. African imagery—photos of farmers, landscapes, folk design—provides access to exotic culture, also highly prized by well-educated consumers. Finally, as a continent in dire economic straits and facing extraordinary humanitarian problems, the idea of supporting coffee producers through trade by buying an expensive local product has tremendous appeal, tapping into the ethical symbolism that Starbuck’s customers find increasingly appealing to assuage their concerns about global inequalities.”

The result is that Starbucks has indeed developed a stylish brand that has been appealing to the company’s target customers. It is this angle of Starbucks brand that attracted most of the public scrutiny following the trademark dispute with Ethiopia. And officials at Starbucks seem to have taken Douglas Holt’s warning that the “actions by Starbucks management … pose a serious threat to Starbucks’ brand equity.”

To that effect, a move about by Starbucks to adapt to the new era is not unexpected or surprising. The company may be attempting to reposition its brand, rather than adapting to realities, possibly by capitalizing on the already built-in images. But, doing so by playing down the roots of those at the lower end of the supply chain is a disingenuous marketing strategy.

In the short term, Starbucks’ decision to avoid mentioning Ethiopia, even in the context of the legends, may be regarded by some as an insolent departure from the subject as long as the dispute over Ethiopia’s coffee trademark names is alive. Still others may also regard this act as a move to discredit the very sources of strength for the company’s brand. The immediate repercussion for Starbucks is, however, that its deeds do attract the public’s attention to the company’s cultures of nomenclature and presentation of its coffees.

As Professor Holt noted, “Starbucks markets coffees in a manner very similar to the marketing of fine wines: writing flowery prose about terrior characteristics and idiosyncratic artisanal processes steeped in local traditions.” The company enjoys the privilege of playing with words to either differentiate a certain coffee or silence the origins of coffee varieties, as in the case of blends. To date, Starbucks’ marketing through the fanciest words has never been questioned.

When describing coffee blends, Starbucks does it in a manner so artistically that the origins become insignificant enough for its customers to worry about.

The classic example is Café Estima Blend™, which is the only Fair Trade Certified™ coffee Starbucks holds. Another important character of this coffee is the fact that it is a blend of coffees purchased from Africa, South America, and other regions. But the description of this product on the company’s website offers a vague impression:

“Velvety smooth and balanced with a roasty-sweet flavor this blend of coffees is a product of the relationships formed between Starbucks and the farmers who grew them. Starbucks is committed to paying fair prices to help give farming families a better life and ensure coffee farms are protected for the future.”

This description highlights the flavor but does not mention origins of the coffees used to make the blend. Moreover, the statement is silent about the black and white certification label bearing the Fair Trade Certified™ mark, which is the only descriptor of the third party certification system that guarantees a fair trade. The Fair Trade Certified™ mark is designed to tell consumers that the independent labeling organization, TransFair USA, has certified that, among others, the farmers were paid a fair price. To understand why Starbucks prefers such general descriptions instead of specific and obvious pointers, one needs to look at how the corporate giant’s strategic business interests.

Starbucks is adamant to the third party certification process which Fair Trade activists advocate. In response to the mounting criticism and the growing demand for fairly traded coffees in the U.S., the company instead has come up with its own version of fair trade called Coffee and Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.) practices which the company actively promotes as social responsibility:

“Starbucks strongly believes in the importance of building mutually-beneficial relationships with coffee farmers and coffee communities with which we work. The success of the farmers with whom we do business is a critical component of our own success. We are taking an integrated approach to building relationships with coffee communities.”

The website enlists components of its integrated approaches which include, “Paying coffee farmers premium prices to help them make profits and support their families.”

It is apparent in the above description of Café Estima Blend™ that the phrase used to depict the product as fairly traded good functions more of mirroring to the descriptions used to promote Starbucks’ C.A.F.E. practices rather than representing the product as Fair Trade Certified™. By not calling the coffee blend as either Fair Trade Certified™ or purchased through C.A.F.E. practices, the company is building parallels between Fair Trade Certified™ and C.A.F.E. - unbeknown to the average customer.

Skeptics believe that Starbucks is now trying to utilize similar marketing tricks to reposition its brand, thus the attempt to re-write the history of coffee. At the moment, the company may be testing the water before attempting to detach the brand from identifiable coffee origin and thus the obscure definitions of “origin.”

Unfortunately, Starbucks’ shying away from origins of coffee through an affront distortion of history and legends will further galvanize the already volatile atmosphere filled with shocked customers who had otherwise perceived the brand as ethical and socially responsible prior to the dispute with Ethiopia. Particularly, targeting Ethiopia for demanding a fair market share will have dire consequences as it is regarded as an attempt to punish the farmers.