Umair right with you. I think much of this added value industry is based on Parkinson's law - there is a flower. It needs watering. This is handled by a gardener. She needs an accountant to handle the salary. The accountant of course needs an office. There has to be a manager...

here it is the one kilo of coffee at the farm gate selling at 20 c - and then $20 in an espresso bar in Milano - and more elsewhere. Ideas are what make that 20 c into $30. The consumer will end up paying for the concept/product stretching of a commodity without getting a reward.

Gut reaction: seems like plain vanilla crowdsourcing ("getting the 'work' for free"), coupled with a half-cocked social-networking aspect as a ploy to make it stickier.

I realize we're talking about coffee here, but, there's a bigger question that this raises, which applies to a lot of things in the emerging marketplace: is that which the crowd deems most popular really always the BEST item for the user? Is the majority consensus ever really going to accept something that pushes boundaries, allows real growth, challenges us? Won't the majority always push things to the middle of the bell curve, where everything is simply comfortable, samey, and, well, "middling?"

It's hard to imagine Steve Jobs taking this approach; he's the poster boy for success by "thinking different," and creating things that consumers want before they even know that they want them. Is it even possible for crowdsourcing to *ever* result in that sort of thing?

Something that caught my eye today.

In the Innovators Dilemma, Clayton Christensen points out that companies to close to their customers (the ones that listen) often fail to see the disruptive innovation.

Without having thought it through - how does this observation square with your comments on listening?

They are not there yet, but it is a step in the direction of the edge, i.e. the right direction. By this time a few of the principles of the edge-generation have made it to the board meetings of major corps. Even a core-driven company like Microsoft is coming out with a pseudo-edge product: Windows Embedded. Maybe I am just being overly optimistic... but let us assume that the core has to a certain extent realized that the "value lies on the edge", so let us move the dialogue forward and start looking at the most effective ways to engage the edge..

Has Starbucks finally got it? Well depends on how you define "it".

I think the Starbucks idea is good. It's all in the perception, and with the right approach there might even be a pointer or two that would take Starbucks some way in gaining strategic advantage.

However, I was thinking of this more in terms of MSM. Could one of the reasons for MSM being in an almost perpetual crisis be that this is essentially a business that has put an honour in talking instead of listening and who may not even hold listening in that high regard?

Taking the position of MSM I think they would make precisely the argument that Ryan Catbird raises in the comments: Is what people want really always the best thing? MSM would say 'No!' and that would be the end of it.

It seems as though starbucks will need to take pure ideas from this site and turn them into realities at 'your' local starbucks to work. It's just like sighting values/talent in the mail-room and bringing them all the way up the corporate latter to make a statement. The alternative is to become the modern day equivalent of the pointless suggestion box near the bathroom.

Jason

The comments on the site seem to be pretty insightful, and would likely never come out of a focus group or survey. They are insights that are coming from the most frequent Starbucks customers, and many of them appear to be extremely popular. Unsolicited ideas tap into problems that consumers already have, as opposed to the answers you might get from a survey which can be more reflective of the questioning method.

Starbucks, however, is missing one of the best ways to tap into edge ideas, however. There should be one of these sites for each individual Starbucks (or at least region) so that they could easily tap into micro-trends and niche desires. A surf-board rack might be an obvious necessity in Long Beach, but would only represent a tiny blip on a nationwide map. Tools like mystarbucksidea should not simply be used to find the ideas that sit in the middle of a bell-curve, but to highlight trends that would not work universally. With only middle-of-the-road thinking they will be doomed to middle-of-the-road results.

it might be a sensible approach, but its not truly "edge" yet. Maybe it will evolve. I think something like www.getsatisfaction.com is far more "edge". For all the talk about Starbucks being more than coffee, the suggestions that I am looking at are all about "making a better coffee shop". Is Starbucks making it easier for people to meet? is Starbucks our concierge? To break out of the place it is in right now, it may need radical relationships, not cozy relationships. IMHO. Growth will come from doing something socially meaningful.

i don't believe howard schultz has the courage or the consciousness or the dna to undo what has made him a hero, buying a rather nice coffee shop in pike place market and turning it into a cliche'.

the campaign you post about reads to me like sheer manipulation and marketing.

you have a whole foods store in kensington now, nice food, but don't you get the feeling that they are selling an identity? yes, this merging of personal identity with branding is creating a new value concept, but it still seems to be part of the problem, treating people as consumers and targets, rather than creative self-actualizing human beings

(and besides, nobody cool goes to starbucks anymore, it is just for mouth breathing sheep and televisions watchers. besides, the caffiene buzz is too gross for the coming times, but that is probably too leading edge to grasp at the moment)

i don't believe howard schultz has the courage or the consciousness or the dna to undo what has made him a hero, buying a rather nice coffee shop in pike place market and turning it into a cliche'.

the campaign you post about reads to me like sheer manipulation and marketing.

you have a whole foods store in kensington now, nice food, but don't you get the feeling that they are selling an identity? yes, this merging of personal identity with branding is creating a new value concept, but it still seems to be part of the problem, treating people as consumers and targets, rather than creative self-actualizing human beings

(and besides, nobody cool goes to starbucks anymore, it is just for mouth breathing sheep and televisions watchers. besides, the caffiene buzz is too gross for the coming times, but that is probably too leading edge to grasp at the moment)

i don't believe howard schultz has the courage or the consciousness or the dna to undo what has made him a hero, buying a rather nice coffee shop in pike place market and turning it into a cliche'.

the campaign you post about reads to me like sheer manipulation and marketing.

you have a whole foods store in kensington now, nice food, but don't you get the feeling that they are selling an identity? yes, this merging of personal identity with branding is creating a new value concept, but it still seems to be part of the problem, treating people as consumers and targets, rather than creative self-actualizing human beings

(and besides, nobody cool goes to starbucks anymore, it is just for mouth breathing sheep and televisions watchers. besides, the caffiene buzz is too gross for the coming times, but that is probably too leading edge to grasp at the moment)

Disclaimer: I am the CEO of Survey Analytics -- We are the guys developing IdeaScale and also run QuestionPro.

I would add to Nicholas Molnar - The challenge most companies face with respect to feedback is that it's a uni-directional model. Focus groups are almost dead because of the costs involved. Online surveys are _very_ popular for soliciting feedback -- I know about this because I run QuestionPro -- Part of our growth has been this _huge_ push towards everyone using online surveys to solicit feedback.

I think the biggest issue with surveys is that it's based on the premise that users should not know what each other are saying -- It's a one-on-one conversation. With sites like MyStarbucksIdeas (and IdeaScale) we have the potential to have a collaborative model for feedback.

Are there issues with this model? - You bet, just like there are issues and pitfalls with focus-groups, surveys etc. -- this also has it's _own_ set of issues:

- users "highjacking" the portal and promoting an agenda
- users perceiving this to be a "marketing ploy"

I would argue that the openness actually force companies to have the dirty laundry out and open. We all know -- when things are open, things get cleaned up.

How many times have you taken a survey and thought -- Will something be done about my feedback? Or is this going into a black hole?

I think a key question is: if a local Starbucks manager sees an idea he loves, is he able to implement it himself? Obviously some things are more likely to require central administration (new models for gift cards, etc.), but what categories of ideas can a manager get away with doing himself?

examples

1. selling an energy drink http://mystarbucksidea.force.com/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087500000004c2s

2. selling re-usable sleeves (with Starbucks logo) http://mystarbucksidea.force.com/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087500000004Cuc

3. *stop* carrying other goods http://mystarbucksidea.force.com/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087500000004Cn2

By establishing an overly organized structure for feedback a company has, in essence, narrowed the opportunity for truly innovative feedback to be given - let alone heard or recognized.

While structure is the fundamental tenant (or plank to stay inline w/ this thread) of all of today's global organizations, structuring how you receive feedback from customers, suppliers, partners, etc. shallows the depth & narrows the breadth of the response.

Been there, done this. It is a recipe for stagnation.

Jeff jarvis wrote/posted in The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/21/internet
on the same theme. What I took away from that article was the top idea was to bring "cafe society back to cafes". If I was really cynical then I would say Starbucks should leverage their online platform into the physical spaces. Seed and encourage cafe style discussion in an attempt to re create their initial lifestyle brand experience.

I have to agree with this article 100%. Lack of leadership is driving the planet into the abyss. What needs to happen is for CEO's to stand up and take charge of leadership. These so called CEO's need to structure new models that show real leadership rather then stuffing their bank accounts or trying to find the next hunting target as a take over. I personally have already started a project that what Umiar may consider a real needed change to better the world. Lets change world with real action. Lets spend our own money.

Mike. N.

>> Has Starbucks finally got it? Well depends on how you define "it".

Right right!

There is no "it". It's not like you can listen for a little while, take what you need, and then use it as a strategic tool to reinforce the moat around your power and wealth. That is not "good" and will eventually fail.

Listening is a continuous process that has no end, so where does it find it's ultimate stability and equilibrium? Doesn't this process imply a journey toward radical change in the relationship between vendor and customer over time? Strength is not in segmentation, isolation and concentration, strength is in equilibrium and mutual recognition of the value offered by the other.