Starbucks Article (1)

8/12/2019 Starbucks Article (1)

1/13

Journal of Consumer Research Inc.

The Starbucks Brandscape and Consumers (Anticorporate) Experiences of GlocalizationAuthor(s): Craig J. Thompson and Zeynep ArselSource: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31, No. 3 (December 2004), pp. 631-642Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/425098.

Accessed: 17/02/2014 01:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago PressandJournal of Consumer Research, Inc.are collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of Consumer Research.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/425098?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/425098?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/13

631

2004 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. Vol. 31 December 2004

All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2004/3103-0015$10.00

The Starbucks Brandscape and Consumers(Anticorporate) Experiences of Glocalization

CRAIG J. THOMPSONZEYNEP ARSEL*

Prior studies strongly suggest that the intersection of global brands and local cul-tures produces cultural heterogeneity. Little research has investigated the ways inwhich global brands structure these expressions of cultural heterogeneity and con-sumers corresponding experiences of glocalization. To redress this gap, we de-velop the construct of the hegemonic brandscape. We use this theoretical lens toexplicate the hegemonic influence that Starbucks exerts upon the socioculturalmilieus of local coffee shops via its market-driving servicescape and a nexus ofoppositional meanings (i.e., the anti-Starbucks discourse) that circulate in popularculture. This hegemonic brandscape supports two distinctive forms of local coffeeshop experience through which consumers, respectively, forge aestheticized andpoliticized anticorporate identifications.

We changed the way people live their lives,what they do when they get up in the morning,how they reward themselves, and where theymeet. (Orin Smith, Starbucks CEO)

The marketing success of Starbucks is legion. The Star-bucks revolution transformed gourmet coffee from ayuppie status symbol into a mainstream consumer good, andit essentially created the American coffee shop market. In

1990, there were approximately 200 freestanding coffeehouses in the United States; today there are over 14,000,with Starbucks owning about 30% of the total (Daniels2003). Starbuckss model of cafe cool has proven readilyexportable on a global scale, sweeping through Canada,China, Japan, Taiwan, Britain, and much of continental Eu-rope, with bold plans to enter coffee mecca (Holmes 2002).Starbucks conquers Rome; grande or venti, Brute?

Starbuckss market dominance coupled with its hyper-aggressive expansion strategywhich leads to a significantrate of cannibalization among its own stores (Daniels 2003;Holmes 2002)also make this brand a lightening rod forprotest and criticism. Starbucks has become a cultural iconfor all the rapacious excesses, predatory intentions, and cul-

tural homogenization that social critics attribute to global-

*Craig J. Thompson is Churchill Professor of Marketing at the Universityof WisconsinMadison, 975 University Avenue, Madison, WI 53706; e-mail: [email protected]. Zeynep Arsel is a doctoral candidate inmarketing at the University of WisconsinMadison, 975 University Avenue,Madison, WI 53706; e-mail: [email protected]. For many helpful sug-gestions on earlier versions of this research, the authors extend much ap-preciation to the editor, the Journal of Consumer Research reviewers, DougHolt, J. Paul Peter, and the marketing faculties at the University of Ten-nesseeKnoxville and Southern Denmark UniversityOdense.

izing corporate capitalism (Falk 1999; Klein 1999). Anti-Starbucks slogans, culture-jamming satires of the Starbuckslogo, and impassioned indictments of the companys busi-ness practices occupy many corners of the Internet, provid-ing meeting points for myriad cybercommunities.

Academic researchers have also entered into this culturalconversation about the consequences of globalization. Forproponents of the homogenization thesis, global brands areTrojan horses through which transnational corporations col-onize local cultures (e.g., Falk 1999; Ritzer 1993). In recentyears, anthropological studies have built a strong empiricalcase that, contrary to the homogenization thesis, consumersoften appropriate the meanings of global brands to their ownends, creatively adding new cultural associations, droppingincompatible ones, and transforming others to fit into localcultural and lifestyle patterns (Hannerz 1996; Miller 1998a).From this perspective, the interjection of global brands intolocal cultures paradoxically produces heterogeneity asglobal brands take on a variety of localized meanings (Gerand Belk 1996; Miller 1998a). More generally, these the-orists contend that local cultures and the forces of global-ization are thoroughly interpenetrated and coshaping; hence,

the effects of globalization on everyday cultural lifeviaglobal brands, fashion, and mass mediaare more accu-rately described as a process of glocalization (Robertson1995; Wilk 1995).

While these studies offer a needed corrective to the ca-lamitous view of global capitalism as a culture-crushing

juggernaut, they present two key theoretical oversights.First, global brands carry meanings that stand in sharp sym-bolic contrast to local alternatives, meanings that existagainst a backdrop of societal anxieties about the power

This content downloaded from 89.67.153.101 on Mon, 17 Feb 2014 01:20:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/13

632 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

wielded by transnational corporations (see Holt 2002; Maz-zarella 2003). Although the homogenization thesis may beflawed as an anthropological explanation of globalizationscultural effects (see Miller 1996), it can function as a folktheory that consumers use to interpret the meanings of globalbrands vis a vis local alternatives. Second, these studies

underestimate the hegemonic (i.e., culture-shaping) influ-ences that global brands can exert upon local markets, con-sumer tastes, and consumption practices (see Askegaard andCsaba 2000). This theoretical oversight is particularly glar-ing for market-driving experiential brands (Pine and Gil-more 1999; Schmitt 1999), which, in conjunction with theircorporate-sponsored symbols and products, offer consumersdistinctively themed servicescapes, designed to facilitatecertain kinds of hedonic/aesthetic experiences and socialinteractions.

To better theorize these aspects of glocalization, we de-velop the concept of the hegemonic brandscape. In the con-sumer research literature, the brandscape generally refers toconsumers active constructions of personal meanings andlifestyle orientations from the symbolic resources providedby an array of brands (Sherry 1998, p. 112). We reconfigurethis consumercentric definition to encompass the hegemonicinfluences that global experiential brands exert on their localcompetitors and the meanings consumers derive from theirexperiences of these glocal servicescapes.

A hegemonic brandscape is a cultural system of service-scapes that are linked together and structured by discursive,symbolic, and competitive relationships to a dominant (mar-ket-driving) experiential brand. The hegemonic brandscapenot only structures an experience economy market (see Pineand Gilmore 1999) but also shapes consumer lifestyles andidentities by functioning as a cultural model that consumers

act, think, and feel through.Roy DAndrade (1990, p. 45) defines a cultural model asa cognitive schema that is intersubjectively shared by acultural group. However, cultural models are not just in-the-head entities. Cultural models are socially shared be-cause they are objectified (see Miller 1998b) through publicdiscourses, material objects, and the design of the physicalenvironment (Shore 1996). A cultural model shapes indi-viduals actions through conventionalized social practices,interactions with its material objectifications, and internal-ization of its discourses via cognitive structures and em-bodied habits. Similarly, a hegemonic brandscape providesa constellation of objectified meanings (i.e., discourses, ma-terial goods, and servicescape atmospherics) that consumers

can incorporate into their worldviews and put to a widevariety of interpretive and identity-constructive uses.

In the coffee shop market, small single-site establish-ments, regional chains, and national franchises like SeattlesBest all occupy competitive positions that are mapped inrelation to Starbucks. The contours of this hegemonic brand-scape are formed by Starbuckss iconic cultural status (seeHolt 2003); its bold and expressive latte lingo; its interna-tional product offerings; its Euro-inspired modern decor; itsupscale, corporate ambiance (see Schmitt and Simonson

1996); and last, but not least, a nexus of oppositional brandmeanings (i.e., the anti-Starbucks discourse) that are largelybeyond the immediate control of Starbuckss management.These oppositional meanings freely circulate in popular cul-ture and, most particularly, in local coffee shops and theiremplaced social networks.

METHOD

The data for this study were collected over a 2-yr. period.A team of graduate students who had been trained in phe-nomenological interviewing (Thompson, Locander, and Pol-lio 1989) by the senior author conducted the initial waveof interviews. The second author then conducted anotherround of interviews and also undertook extensive participantobservation at several local coffee shops.

The interviews and fieldwork gathered insights from reg-ular patrons of local coffee shops in one large metropolitancity and one quintessential latte town (see Brooks 2000,pp. 1039). Our sample drew from regular patrons of six

specific coffee shops whose market positions ranged from anadamantly anti-Starbucks stancefashioned around counter-cultural symbols and bohemian atmosphericsto those ex-hibiting a more polished, bourgeois ambiance. Photographsand fieldnotes from the six coffee shops supplemented ourinterview texts. The names of the local coffee shops, theirowners, employees, and patrons are pseudonyms.

To avoid imposing local-global polarizations, participantswere told that the study concerned their experiences andperceptions of coffee shops. Each interview session beganwith general questions about participants personal back-grounds, interests, and life goals and then focused upon theirexperiences of local coffee shops. Our participants hailedfrom a range of backgroundsrural, working class, and

middle classbut with one exception, all had attended col-lege. The vast majority worked in professional occupations(see table 1). This educational and occupational mix is con-sistent with the demographic profile of typical coffee shoppatrons (see Dawidowska 2002).

We interpreted this qualitative data using a hermeneuticapproach (Thompson 1997). In this process, provisional un-derstandings are formed, challenged, revised, and furtherdeveloped through an iterative movement between individ-ual transcripts and the emerging understanding of the entireset of textual data. Our analysis induced two distinctive typesof local coffee shop consumption. In presenting these find-ings, we first discuss the structural aspects of the Starbucksbrandscape. Next, we explicate the defining experiences and

underlying cultural meanings, ideals, and anticorporateiden-tifications that cafe flaneurs and oppositional localists, re-spectively, enact in this hegemonic brandscape.

THE CULTURAL STRUCTURE OF THE

STARBUCKS BRANDSCAPE

Global Structures of Common Difference

Richard Wilks (1995) concept of global structures ofcommon difference follows quite directly from the glocal-



4/13

THE STARBUCKS BRANDSCAPE 633

TABLE 1

PROFILE OF PARTICIPANTS

Pseudonym Age Occupation Education Family status

Alan 70 Writer-publisher BS Married, empty nesterAnne 42 College professor PhD Divorced with kidsBeth 21 Student BS (in progress) SingleBob 40 Massage therapist BS SingleBrian 39 Mental health nurse MS SingleCarie 43 Teacher/track coach MS SingleCooper 33 Private investigator BS SingleDavid 37 Librarian BS MarriedDebbie 26 Marketing researcher BA MarriedDennis Early 70s Retired police officer BS Married, empty nesterElla 28 Graduate student PhD (in progress) SingleFatima 22 Student BS (in progress) SingleFrank 34 Production manager BS SingleGeorge 31 Graduate student PhD (in progress) SingleGreg 36 Sales consultant MBA Divorced with kidsJanet 21 Student BS (in progress) SingleJohn 34 Graduate student PhD (in progress) SingleJoy 34 Social worker BS MarriedKate 35 Freelance writer/yoga instructor High school SingleKevin Mid-30s Teacher MS SingleKumar 30 Graduate student PhD (in progress) SingleLaura 27 Social worker BS MarriedMartha 60 Retired social worker/student BS (in progress) Single with kidsMary Mid-20s Student BS (in progress) SingleMatthew 32 Engineer/consultant PhD SingleMolly 30 Student MS (in progress) SinglePatricia 52 Small business owner Some college Married with kidsPatrick 31 Small business owner MS MarriedPaul 30 Unemployed BS SingleRebecca 21 Student BS (in progress) SingleRosie 26 Teacher BS SingleSandra 33 Graduate student PhD (in progress) SingleScott 26 Graduate student/business analyst MBA (in progress) MarriedStephen 40 Taxi driver/union organizer BS SingleTori 32 Graduate student PhD (in progress) Married

ization thesis. However, it suggests that the interpenetrationsof the global and the local do not occur in a strictly sym-metrical fashion. The cultural game is slanted toward trans-national corporations because they wield considerable eco-nomic, political, and cultural clout. Global structures ofcommon difference organize and even promote cultural dif-ferences along specific dimensions. Thus, globalization isa hegemony of form not content, which celebrates partic-ular kinds of diversity while submerging, deflating, or sup-pressing others (Wilk 1995, p. 118). In other words, glo-calized cultural diversity equates to variations on underlyinghegemonic themes.

The global structures of common difference that emanatefrom Starbuckss market dominance correspond to the quin-tessential qualities of third-places detailed by sociologistRay Oldenburg (1989). Third-places (e.g., diners, taverns,pubs, cafes, coffee shops) exist between the formality andseriousness of the work sphere and the privacy and familialintimacy of the domestic sphere. Third-places are conduciveto informal conversations and casual friendships, where pa-trons imbibe a comforting sense of community, camaraderie,and social engagement. Oldenburg (1989) argues that cor-

porate chains are inherently antithetical to third-place ex-periences. However, Starbuckss staggering success is duein large part to its skill at creating, standardizing, and im-plementing an upscale third-place ambiance on a globalscale (Schmitt 1999).

In American metropolitan settings, a coffee shop is moreor less like Starbucks in much the same way that a fast-foodrestaurant is more or less like McDonalds or a theme parkis more or less like Disney World. Metropolitan coffee shopsare organized around several readily discernible global struc-tures of common difference that dialectically link Starbucksto its local competitors. These structures include prominent

displays of visual art; background music that can be classifiedas either sophisticated (in the high culture sense), hip, or insome way countercultural, but certainly not Top 40 main-stream; and a hedonically rich menu featuring oversized gour-met muffins, oversized cookies, focaccias, bagels, and epi-curean sandwiches. The interior decor should convey a senseof warmth coupled with a distinctive aesthetic flair. Coffeeshops have also been historically linked to intellectual en-gagement and cultural enrichment (Sherry 1995). Accord-ingly, a selection of arts-oriented media and newspapers, in-



5/13


cluding prestigious dailies such as the New York Times, arestandard coffee shop accoutrements. These edifying readingmaterials connect coffee shop patrons to the broader worldsof art, politics, and community events and hence can stimulatethird-place conversations. A sense of worldliness is also con-veyed through signifiers of the international coffee

tradesuch as maps of the major coffee-growing regions,images of indigenous coffee farmers, and bulk coffeedisplays,often in archaic burlap bags.

These Starbuckified structures of common difference canaccommodate an array of variations. In our sample of coffeeshops, the countercultural expressions are characterized byrisque or politically challenging art; musical selections dis-tributed by indie (i.e., small independent) labels of thetechno, hardcore, or alt-country variety; furnishings exudinga seemingly unplanned, secondhand-shop aura; and a bo-hemian staff brandishing tattoos, body piercing, avant hairstyles, and other subversive sartorial statements. Other cof-fee shops appeal to an upscale new class sensibility (e.g.,Brooks 2000). Their servicescapes are designed to display

aesthetic refinement rather than challenge mainstream sen-sibilities. Light jazz, tasteful artblack and white stills andclassical landscapes, perhaps spiced with some abstract im-pressionismand a staff whose sartorial styles would be athome in a J. Crew or Abercrombie & Fitch catalog constitutetheir atmospheric mix.

The Anti-Starbucks Discourse

Starbuckss stratospheric growth and market dominancehas also given rise to a multifaceted oppositional discoursethat permeates local coffee shop culture and the virtual pleb-iscite of the World Wide Web. Starbucks is condemned forpropagating a soul-numbing aesthetic homogeneity and san-

itized versions of the creative arts. Activists groups assailStarbucks for predatory business practices and a plethora ofdeleterious effects on the local coffee trade, theenvironment,and the economic well-being of coffee growers. In recentyears, Starbucks has also come under fire for using dairyproducts containing rBGH,1 thereby linking the brand toconsumer anxieties over genetic engineering and giving riseto yet another culture-jamming play on the brand name:Frankenbucks. Starbucks is also widely berated on coffeeconnoisseur Web sites for overroasting its beans (e.g., Char-bucks) and for debasing the espresso experience (see Ko-zinets 2002b).

Starbucks directs considerable marketing effort towardcountering these charges and has even altered its product

line, offering selections of fair trade coffees and organicmilk in some markets. This maneuver has had little effecton the tenor of the anti-Starbucks discourse. Starbucksscritics dismiss these changes as cynical marketing ploys that

1Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rBST), more commonly known asrecombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), is a genetically modifiedhormone. Injecting cows with rBGH generates substantial increases in theirmilk production. Although approved by the FDA in 1994, environmentalgroups and organic food activists contend that rBGH poses significanthealth risks to both humans and dairy cattle.

are relatively inconsequential in the grand scheme of Star-buckss global operations, for example, noting that fair tradecoffees make up less than 1% of its wholesale purchases(see http://ww.organicconsumers.org).

For our analytic purposes, the factual merits of thesecharges and corporate rebuttals are not the relevant consid-

eration. The anti-Starbucks discourse has become as much apart of local coffee shop culture as an espresso served in ademitasse with biscotti on the side. As we will show, the anti-Starbucks discourse provides an interpretive frame that ourparticipants use to understand the meanings of their localcoffee shop patronage. Instead of generating a uniform re-sponse, however, the anti-Starbucks discourse gives rise totwo distinctive ways of consuming local coffee shops andtwo distinctive responses to the specter of corporatehegemony.

CONSUMER EXPERIENCES OF THE

(G)LOCAL IN THE STARBUCKS

BRANDSCAPE

Cafe Flaneurs/The Social and Creative Buzz

I dont really talk to too many people whenIm here. Ill read the papers and just kind ofwatch people. Youre not trying to listen butyou cant help it. And, some of the stories, you

just feel so bad. Or you feel like, hey, you kindof deserved it. I mean, what did you expect,you didnt show up for work, and you gotcaught smoking pot the day you came back.You deserve to be fired. You know, or what-ever. The sad stories, like people dying and

people feeling bad. You know, you could writea story, you really could. (Scott)

The image of theurban flaneurhas been intimately linkedto the experiences of metropolitan life ever since nineteenth-century writer Charles Baudelaires reflections on the Par-isian urban landscape (see Featherstone 1991). The urbanflaneur (and flaneuse) is a pleasure seeker who becomesimmersed in the hyperkinetic, sensory-saturated world ofthe large metropolis, with little regard for time, schedules,or instrumental outcomes (Benjamin 1973). The urban fla-neurthrives on the perpetual motion of the crowd and thecontinual buzz of conversations, but he or she does so in avoyeuristic manner, observing rather than directly partici-pating in the unfolding drama of the street.

Through the cafe flaneurship, local coffee shop patronsalso create a space where they can linger in the moment, atleast temporarily suspending the press to squeeze more pro-ductivity out of their day and where they can act upon theparadoxical consumer desire to be out in public while retain-ing a detached anonymity. Rather than seeking an experienceof communal solidarity,cafe flaneursrevel in the social spec-tacle of the coffee shop crowd. For some in our sample,striking up casual conversations enhances this experience.However, their aim is not to build an enduring relationship



6/13


or to become part of a community; rather, they are seekinga more intimate, but transient, social encounter that offers abrief glimpse into the life of another. Several of our cafeflaneurs also engage in explicit forms of identity playsuchas being a novelist, poet, or performer (on open mikenights)that stand apart from their work-a-day and family

lives and that draw energy from the buzz of local coffee shops.Our emic themethe social and creative buzzprofiles

a range of meanings that are enacted through cafe flaneur-ship. The buzz theme is constituted by two intertwined andmutually supportive experiential dimensions, which arenonetheless analytically distinguishable. The social buzz re-fers to the feelings of invigoration that cafe flaneurs gainfrom being in this dynamic public space, observing others,and eavesdropping on conversations. The creative buzz re-fers to the feeling of artistic inspiration that they gain frombeing in a social space exhibiting a stimulating and inter-esting decor, music, and visual art.

The social aspect of the buzz theme is nicely illustratedin the following quote from Patrick, who, like many of our

cafe flaneurs, seldom makes coffee at home, despite theconvenience and cost savings offered by home brewing:

Interviewer: Do you make coffee at home?

Patrick: No. Never. Isnt that odd? I dont even own a coffee

machine. Because, I mean, thats the whole thing. I drink coffee

because I want to be out among people. Like my mom bought

me an espresso machine 3, 4, 5 years ago. I dont even re-

member. I gave it away the day she left [after a visit]. I dont

drink coffee. I meet people. Thats the whole fuckin point.

The draw for me is the people there, contact with other people.

Cafe flaneurs view local coffee shops as presenting a moredistinctive ambiance and hence as providing a more engag-

ing and stimulating buzz. Their preferences for local coffeeshops over Starbucks hinge upon voyeuristic, hedonic, andidentity play considerations. One of the studys participants,Laura, reports:

I try to avoid Starbucks. If Im staying somewhere for a

while, Ill try to look for the other places. There was a coffee

shop that was directly across the street from my house that

I was staying at, visiting some friends in San Francisco, and

it was called Simple Pleasures. It was a real cafe. They served

Guinness beer and different sandwiches and coffees. They

had some regulars. There was some guy, he would sit there

every day. My friend and I were like this guy is there

again, like for a week. What is he doing? Hes got to be

on unemployed! He was totally loving life, just sitting back,with his shirt open usually, just having his coffee. Long

blonde hair, kind of stringy, sitting there. He was so funny,

because it was like him and his buddies, three other guys,

just hanging out. We would go there and they were there,

you know. We enjoyed it.

Cafe flaneursview Starbucks as a conservative, relativelybanal cultural space, catering to an equally bland corporateclientele. Yet, their aesthetic censures of Starbucks are often

tempered by an appreciation for Starbuckss high level ofquality of service and the comfort offered by its familiarsettings:

Carie: Im not a Starbucks fan, just because Im not like

corporate Starbucks world. Although I have, like, I was in

New Zealand at Christmas time and, you know, I found aStarbucks in Auckland, and that was the place, you know.

More because it was kind of a more comfortable setting, you

know, youre comfortable with Starbucks. But in a place like

[city name], you have, you know, Magic Bean and Java Jive

that I love. At times, Magic Beans coffee [her primary coffee

shop], its so strong, its so intense that I need a little break,

and Ill do like, Java Jive for a little bit of a pace changer.

Interviewer: How would you compare Magic Bean to

Starbucks?

Carie:Obviously, you dont have the corporate world behind

Magic Bean and how big they [Starbucks] are. I mean, when

you see a Starbucks, like in Auckland, youre going, Star-

bucks, what are they doing here? But it looks exactly thesame. I mean, you might as well be in New York, you might

as well be in Chicago, or wherever, you know, Rockford. I

do think they do an amazing job of having great quality for

as big as they are.

All of our cafe flaneurs express some variation on the ideathat Starbucks is a comfortable place whose primary short-comings are dullness and uniformity. They do not dividethe world into stark Manichean terms, where Starbucks rep-resents a diabolical force and where local coffee shops sym-bolize all that is noble and good. They are not rigidly op-posed to frequenting Starbucks and periodically do so owingto convenience or social considerations (e.g., Starbucks isa good place to have a casual business meeting). They in-terpret Starbuckss marketplace dominance as a conse-quence of its customer service acumen and quality productsrather than predatory practices. Moreover, they tend to as-cribe a caring capitalist good intent to Starbuckss manage-ment, assuming that profit goals are balanced by ethicalconcerns for the environment and its workforce.

However, our cafe flaneurs are aware that Starbucks iscommonly vilified as an icon of globalizations worst ex-cesses and that frequenting Starbucks is a taboo practicewithin many quarters of the local coffee shop culture. In thecase of Sandra, her dispassionate comprehension of the anti-Starbucks discourse (coupled with social pressure to boycottthe chain) leads to a half-hearted renunciation of the brand,

even though she surreptitiously frequents one of its nearbystores:

The shop I feel most connected to probably will be Java Jive,

and a lot of it has to do with just the fact that it is not a big

chain like the Starbucks. For a long time I wouldnt go to

Starbucks because in my circle of friends its not socially ac-

ceptable to go to Starbucks because it is just a big corporate

and that it destroys all the local coffee shops. Its not necessary

that I feel that strongly butits that my friends feel thatstrongly.

Its peer pressure for not going to Starbucks to the point that



7/13


if I want to go to Starbucks and carry something out, I will

bring my own cup so I can walk around without having a

Starbucks cup in my hand in public. I know thats ridiculous.

I dont personally feel that I cant frequent Starbucks based

not on my own beliefs. Theres a Starbucks thats right by my

house. For a long time, I didnt go because my boyfriend is

really opposed to Starbucks, but its so convenient and socomfortable. So I go there anyway and hope that nobody sees

me walking out of there who will think less of me for being

there. So I guess I would never be attached to Starbucks be-

cause it is corporate. There is nothing thats special or charming

about it as far as I am concerned.

Strikingly, Sandra voices one of the most damning ac-cusations from the anti-Starbucks discourseit destroys allthe local coffee shopsand then she immediately notes thatshe does not feel very strongly about it. Much like our othercafe flaneurs, Sandra has an intellectual awareness of the

anti-Starbucks discourse, but she has little emotional in-vestment in these beliefs, and she does not attribute anyoverriding sociopolitical significance to her choice of coffeeshops. She is primarily concerned about the perceptions andreactions of others who do make such moral ascriptions.Emotional attachment and loyalty, rather than patronage, arewhere she draws the moral line; she may go to Starbucks,but it will never be a favorite establishment. Yet, this sym-bolic boundary is ultimately justified on aesthetic rather thanpolitical grounds; the perceived lack of distinctive charmonce again emerges as Starbuckss Achilles heel.

The following reflection from Patrick further illustratesthe cultural logic of this aesthetic privileging. In diametriccontrast to his idealized view of European cafes, which he

sees as possessing tradition and a genuine artistic flare, Star-buckss atmospherics are viewed as highly calculated andcorporatized affectations:

Starbucks is so calculated as to be unappealing. I mean, its

really calculated. Remember the movieBeetlejuice? Remem-

ber the sets of that, where like, the furniture all was kind of

curvy and brightly colored? And there was like zig-zaggy

polka-dots and things like that, you know. Thats what their

[Starbucks] decor is. Theres a theory, decadence in art is

when craftsmanship replaces creativity. Thats the difference

between art and graphic design. And thats exactly whats

happened at Starbucks. Like the ambiance there is GRAPHIC

DESIGN! Punch in the numbers and get curvy furniture and

a broad palette of pleasing pastels. And you know that its

one design team centered in San Francisco, New York, or

Los Angeles. Some major metropolitan area design team has

come in and okay, heres how were going to design the

cafe of the, then, 90s, right? Im sorry, that just doesnt

work for me. Id rather have tradition, you know.

Whereas oppositional localists vilify Starbucks as a globalgoliath bent on world domination, cafe flaneurs, in a ratherodd way, humanize Starbucks; they construct it in terms

akin to a geeky friend who is self-consciously trying to actsophisticated in hopes of reaping social approval. This en-dearing anthropomorphism aside, cafe flaneurs also viewStarbuckss ambiance as an inauthentic, profit-driven mar-keting fabrication that will change whenever customer pref-erences shift. In contrast, local coffee shops are deemed to

be authentic expressions of their proprietors aesthetic tastesand the local color of the neighborhoods they serve.

Cafe flaneurs further privilege local coffee shops overStarbucks through a labor-of-love/gift economy attribution.Their narratives emphasize that the proprietors of their pre-ferred coffee shop are motivated by higher ideals and goalsthan profit considerations. Carie reports:

Here [Magic Bean] its comfortable, I dont know if its the

flow of how you move from the coffee pot. I like this place

because you can pour your own coffee. I think Tina (the

proprietor) does an incredible thing, sort of an all-you-can-

drink, bottomless cup, which I think is great. So many places

you buy a cup of coffee, and I like really hot coffee, so Ill

typically start with a cup like this, Ill fill it up halfway anddo like a couple half cups, so its really hot. If youre paying

each time, thats like, you know, an expensive endeavor, Im

not sure Tina will get rich doing that, but I dont think its

about getting rich. I think its about serving a reallyshe

really wants to serve a good cup of coffeea really fresh,

great cup of coffee. And teach people about good beans.

Historically, the bottomless coffee cup has symbolized agift from the proprietors of third-place establishments to theirclientele (Oldenburg 1989; Sherry 1995). As illustrated byCaries passage, cafe flaneurs interpret the most beloved as-pects of their favorite local coffee shops as expressions of

this atavistic practice. Their feelings of customer loyalty aregrounded in the reciprocal obligations of the gift economy.

Oppositional Localists/Communal Grounds

Debbie told us:

I prefer coffee shops like this. Like I feel, especially in Chicago,

our theory was the reason we werent able to find a really

good coffee shop there is because a Starbucks is on almost

every corner. Starbucks is awful. There is even a Simpsons

episode where Bart Simpson walks into the mall, and then you

see a Starbucks and you see next door, Coming

SoonStarbucks. Then he leaves and you see the whole mall

from the inside, and its wall-to-wall Starbucks. Its funny, but

in a way its true.

The wall-to-wall Starbucks narrative is quite prevalentamong oppositional localists, a metaphor that is further elab-orated through bleak images of plagues, cancers, and invadingforces. Whereas cafe flaneurs view Starbuckss marketplaceubiquity as a testament to its well-earned popularity, oppo-sitional localists take it as a galling affirmation that local



8/13


competitors have been crowded out. Several of our opposi-tional localists (many of whom view coffee as a life ne-cessity) describe situations where they were traveling andhad little practical choice but to frequent a Starbucks. Ratherthan viewing Starbucks as a comfortable standby, in themanner of cafe flaneurs, they rail against the lack of con-

venient, locally owned alternatives (presumably casualtiesof Starbuckss rapacious expansion), and they express dis-dain toward the Starbucks experience:

Laura: Youre going to run into definitely an element of in-

dividuals who are avoiding it [Starbucks], and theyre here

because they like to support local businesses, and I agree. I

mean, its kind of hard, I try to do my part, supporting local

businesses. But if I am in a different community, its hard to

find local businesses sometimes, because Starbucks are per-

vasive, and theyre everywhere, and theyre kind of like at all

these convenient places that you find yourself. Like in the

airports or if you get off a subway, theyre right there. Its just

that convenience. So, I think when Im traveling, and I really

need something right away, Ill go, I wont say, no, I refuse.But locally, here at home, I dont go there.

Interviewer: So, how do you feel when you have to go there?

Laura: I feel like, oh, man. Like, oh, well. I just need this.

And I think thats why I feel so upset because its just like my

necessities are so basic. I just need a coffee. I just need some

caffeine. I just need a place to rest and drink my coffee for an

hour. I dont like these ridiculous names of coffees. Theyre

just like these crazy made-up names, and they can be really

long. . . . Is it truly a name or just something that the branding

guru made up because it sounds cool and Italian?

When occasionally frequenting a Starbucks, oppositional lo-calists feel exploited by a Machiavellian marketing machine.The following passage from Kate gives voice to this sen-timent, and it also illustrates a key symbolic distinction thatensues from oppositional localists wholehearted embraceof the anti-Starbucks discourse. Their preferences for localcoffee shops are anchored by a steadfast conviction that theypossess insight into the devious and diabolical workings ofglobal corporate capitalism that is lacking among the generalpopulation and most particularly the typical Starbucks cus-tomer. Kate reports:

Well, its not like there are bad people who work there [Star-

bucks]. I mean, the people who work there are just like work-

ing everywhere else. They were very polite, and they gave

me water, too. But, I feel like Im in an experiment. I walk

in and get this feeling that this is how they think people wanta coffee shop to be. Theyre doing marketing research. They

probably interviewed a thousand people. And one woman

will say,I like a good couch. And another person will say

Id like to see a little fireplace. So, they put together this

idea of a universally accepted coffee shop, but I have a feeling

the average Starbucks customer is more like in their thirties,

like theyre an older professional crowd. Theyre not so con-

cerned socially or politically, maybe. Like theyre not really

concerned about supporting a big corporation. I dont know

if you saw the Austin Powers movie, but I think Dr. Evil had

his headquarters up in a Starbucks building in Seattle.

Oppositional localists construct their preferred coffee shopsas a locus of communal solidarity. They sanctify local coffee

shops as outposts ofreal politikactions where like-mindedindividuals can collectively challenge prevailing corporatepower structures, enact a progressive vision of a just andsustainable economy, and defy the alienating forces of com-mercialization. Bob says:

I think the main feature that appeals to me is that they [own-

ers] are trying to build a sense of community here. Their

goal isnt necessarily financial. They want to be able to, you

know, afford their house payments and to eat, but they pay

their employees very well, much better than most jobs of this

sort would pay. Theyre very active about doing independent

art shows and promoting independent artists. Theyre both

musicians and have a band. They do music shows on the

weekends, every Friday and Saturday, and they promote the

most independent artists you can imagine and folk singers.

Theyre very politically active. I think thats the community

theyre trying to build around, people who are politically

active and committed to social change. I think that may be

the number one appeal. All their food is vegan, including

their bakery. Its that sense of social activism about these

two people in particular that I love.

Like cafe flaneurs, oppositional localists celebrate the pro-prietors of local coffee shops for pursuing higher idealsrather than profits. Whereas cafe flaneursassume that theseideals are aesthetically motivated and exist in the gift econ-

omy, oppositional localists place them squarely in the po-litical economy. Among those in our sample familiar withRevolution House, there is a clear consensus that this es-tablishment is the paragon of a real coffee shop.

In every single aspect of its operation, Revolution Houseis perceived to be the antithesis of Starbucks. From its second-hand decor, to its leftist political artwork and murals, to itsGreenpeace fliers, to its steady stream of politically orientedfolk singers and poets, Revolution Houses atmospherics fullyembody the anti-Starbucks discourse. Other coffee shops inour sample with a strong oppositional localists following donot exude such an overtly political milieu. They do, however,hit the right anti-Starbucks notes by offering fair trade coffees,providing a venue for politically oriented local artists, and

supporting alternative local media and fundraising activitiesfor activist groups, such as the AIDS support network.

This left-of-the-dial political sensibilitywhich invokesthe specter of 1960s radicalismis closely aligned with themarket (and social) positioning of these local coffee shopsas countercultural havens. A recurrent sentiment expressedby oppositional localists is that their preferred coffee shopsare open to diversity. However, this sense of diversity isdefined through a diametric contrast to middle-class lifestylenorms, fashion mores, aesthetic tastes, and, more generally,



9/13


centrist-to-conservative political values. For individuals whooften feel out of place in mainstream society and politicallymarginalized, the antiestablishment trappings of bohemiancoffee shops communicate an inviting tolerance of alter-native lifestyles and support of their political ideologies.These experiences of being at home in the company of

kindred spirits can generate a powerful emotional resonanceand a sense of devout loyalty to the shop, its owners, andcommunity of patrons. Rosie reports:

I love this place [Revolution House]. When I was 16, a friend

brought me here. I was just like, oh, yeah, this is a cool

coffee shop. So, I really loved it here. I just felt so at home

knowing that, well, first of all, I knew I was different. Im

gay. These people accept diversity, everything from the color

of the wall and the paintings to all the murals by the [outside]

door. It was so fascinating. And the people that worked here,

the owners, Ken and Gina, are so cool. The people that they

hire are so friendly overall. You cant always go to a business

establishment and have like a philosophical conversation with

the person working there. But here it always seemed like thatwas possible. Its just like I love it here. So, its the atmo-

sphere. I mean, it really is a wonderful atmosphere. I like

the art here. See these lamps? I love how they always are

open to like weird new art. They play good music. I come

to the music shows on Fridays and Saturdays. You dont have

to have a ton of money to go to see a good show. A lot of

times, its local music. Theyre so open to a diversity of

music and experimentalism and originality, with pretty po-

litical leanings as well, and I like that, too.

A strong preference for unconventional decors, art, anddiverse (e.g., countercultural) clientele can be readily seen

in the reflections of both cafe flaneurs and oppositional lo-calists. Whereas the former group experiences these atmo-spherics as a spectacle to be enjoyed, oppositional localistsregard them as the salutary objectification of societal valuesand political persuasions that bond together a diverse com-munity of socially conscious citizens. Accordingly, oppo-sitional localists voice displeasure toward any changes thatmove their favorite local coffee shops in the direction ofStarbuckss upscale ambiance. Rebecca reports:

I dont like Java Jive after they rehabbed it. They fixed it up

real fancy. It just seemed colder for some reason. I just think

they tried to fix it up to compete with Starbucks, to make it

look nicer inside. When they did that, it lost some of its charm.

I dont know. Maybe there were structural things, and they

figured they might as well try to clean it up while they were

at it. But Java Jive doesnt have as warm of an atmosphere,

which is one reason why I dont like it that much. Its kind

of sterile in there. All the chairs and tables are the same.

When oppositional localists encounter a Starbucks clone,they tend to interpret these local establishments through theframe of the anti-Starbucks discourse. Hence, they assume

that Starbuck-emulating proprietors are driven by the profitmotives and corporate ethos that they regard as anathemato preserving local diversity and community-enhancingbusinesses. Rebecca states the following:

I dont go to Anchors Away. Its more sterile. Everybody has

to look a certain way to work there, and it is always kept veryclean and professional. It seems like it is geared more toward

the business-type people, which is just not a crowd that I really

mesh with very well. Also, I was walking past there a week

or two ago, and they had this sign outside their door that had

some compliment from USA Today, like it said a great place

for friends, warmth, and coffee, something along those lines.

But the thing is that all of the coffee shops that I want to

patronize would never, ever make a sandwich board out of

some review that USA Today gave them. USA Today is like

this big corporate newspaper, and you just dont go around

running off your tongue that USA Today says youre great.

Oppositional localists are quite astute at deconstructing theartifice of Starbuckss design, and they are quick to castigatelocal coffee shops that emulate its corporate look. However,they are not inclined to turn a critical eye toward their favoritebohemian establishments, preferring to see theseatmosphericsas spontaneous expressions of communally shared social andpolitical values. Owing to this reflexive blindspot, they donot confront a number of potentially disconcerting ambiguitiesraised by glocalization. A local coffee shop that exudes anantiestablishment aura may still run its business in a mannerthat diverges from the social values lauded by oppositionallocalists; conversely, a local coffee shop owner who emulatesStarbuckss upscale ambiance as a competitive strategy may

still support socially responsible business practices. Further-more, an avowedly anti-Starbucks ambiance may be no lesscalculated than an explicitly Starbuckified one, particularlywhen a proprietor realizes that this market positioning strategyprovides a very viable competitive niche for local coffeeshops(Helliker and Leung 2002). Acknowledging these dialecticalcomplexities, however, would also undermine the sharp moraldistinctions that enliven oppositional localists politicized an-ticorporate identifications.

DISCUSSION

Our study supports the broader theoretical claim that globalbrands do exert a systematic influence on the cultural het-

erohybridization engendered by glocalization. We have de-veloped the analytic concept of the hegemonic brandscape toexplicate the cultural discourses, consumption practices, andsymbolic identifications through which consumers experiencethese glocalized servicescapes and articulate personal and col-lective relationships to them.

Starbuckss cultural influence extends well beyond the con-fines of its corporate Web site, catalogues, and 6,500 retailoutlets. The Starbucks revolution has crystallized and prop-agated a particular kind of third-place experience (coffee shop



10/13


patronage); it has shaped cultural expectations and idealsabout what coffee shops should be. Despite recurrent chargesof destroying local competition, in the United States at least,local coffee shops are riding on Starbuckss caffeinated wake.Not only are these local Davids doing fairly well; many relyupon an anti-Starbucks positioning (i.e., support your local

coffee shop) and specifically design their servicescapes tooffer an alternative to Starbuckss trademark ambiance (Fonda2002; Helliker and Leung 2002).

Brands that attain a significant portion of culture share areinevitably pulled into the politics of consumption debates (seeHolt 2002, 2003). Along with Starbucks, Microsoft, Disney,Nike, Coca-Cola, McDonalds, and Wal-Mart are transnationalbrands that enjoy considerable success while simultaneouslybeing the recurrent targets of antibrand activism and grassroots efforts to block their expansion. Furthermore,consumerswho wish to take a stand on globalization debates via con-sumption choices may gravitate toward David-like brands thatcan be interpreted as fighting a heroic battle against the cor-porate Goliaths of global capitalism. Smaller competitors haveample opportunity to profit from an explicitly anticorporatebrand image, such as Snapples positioning (prior to its pur-chase by Quaker Oats) as the rebellious alternative to the softdrink behemoths Coke and Pepsi (see Holt 2003).

Patronage of local coffee shops affords similar anticor-porate (and antihegemonic) identifications through symboliccontrasts to Starbucks. Our local coffee shop aficionados bearsome resemblance to the phenomenon of oppositional brandloyalty described by Muniz and OGuinn (2001, p. 420):through opposition to competing brands, brand communitymembers derive an important aspect of their community ex-perience, as well as an important component of the meaningof the brand. In the case of cafe flaneurs and oppositional

localists, their loyalties are grounded in a culturally diffusedoppositional narrativeemanating from antiglobalization ac-tivismthat has become an integral cultural feature of thishegemonic brandscape and that engenders strong affinities forlocal coffee shops in general (excluding those that appear tobe Starbucks clones). They differentially leverage this mul-tifaceted anti-Starbucks discourse to experience local coffeeshops as corporate-free bastions of authenticity, aesthetic di-versity, communal solidarity, and progressive sociopoliticalvalues.

Cafe flaneurs are acting upon a cosmopolitan desire toexperience authentic local cultures, where authenticity is un-derstood through a symbolic contrast to the commercializedexperiences offered by conventional tourist sites and Mc-

Donaldized servicescapes (see Thompson and Tambyah1999). Rather than viewing Starbucks as a corporate colossusdestroying local competition, they regard it as a boring, stan-dardized, and mass-marketed meeting place, catering to theprosaic tastes of the corporate world. They valorize localcoffee shops as noncommercial environments where they canexperience aesthetic and social stimulation, and enjoy, as akind of gift from the establishments proprietors, an authenticexpression of local culture.

Oppositional localists are acting upon an emancipatory de-

sire to create communal spaces and exchange systems thatoffer an alternative to the profit-driven, commodity logic ofcorporate capitalism (see Holt 2002; Kozinets 2002a). Theytake the anti-Starbucks discourse as a sociopolitical gospeland regard the support of local coffee shops as a consequentialrebuke to corporate power. Oppositional localists are fairly

militant in their views about what constitutes a legitimate localcoffee shop, questioning the social consciousness and moti-vations of any proprietor whose establishment does not dis-play a strident anti-Starbuckss political sensibility.

The Starbucks brandscape is embedded and embroiled inbroader cultural anxieties over the so-called branding of cul-ture by transnational corporations (Holt 2002; Klein 1999).Through their anticorporate identifications, consumers can ex-perience the glocalized servicescapes of local coffee shopsas aesthetic, social, and political alternatives to corporate he-gemony. In this way, the patronage of local coffee shopsprovides a symbolic anodyne for the feelings of cynicism,alienation, disenchantment, and disempowerment that couldresult from the increasingly ubiquitous presence of corporate

influence in everyday life.Neatly situated within this hegemonic brandscape, local

coffee shops would seem to exemplify Oldenburgs (1989)conception of the third-place that exists between public andprivate life and that sustains a delicate balance between themoral economy and the exchange economy. In third-places,the ever-besieged vestiges of traditional communal relation-ships and collective identifications are said to be cultivatedand nourished. In contrast to this laudatory reading of con-temporary third-places, Aries (1978) concludes that coffeeshops and other like third-places have been stripped of theironce consequential role in the body politic by the socioeco-nomic changes linked to suburbanization and the related cul-tural privileging of the family over community as the dom-

inant sphere for emotional investments and personalidentification. From this view, contemporary cafes are littlemore than postmodern simulations of a by-gone communalethos that emerged in the formative period of modernity whenindividuals were citizens rather than consumers and whencommunities functioned as loci of political and civic en-gagement rather than as lifestyle enclaves.2 Accordingly, localcoffee shops and national chains, like Starbucks, are both akinto retro brands (Brown, Kozinets, and Sherry 2003) that haverepackaged a nostalgic, Disneyfied vision of nineteenth-cen-tury Gemeinschaft solidarity and sociopolitical affinity intoconsumable and commodifiable servicescapes.

In the fragmented and individuated age of postmodern con-sumer culture, a nostalgic view of community has become ahighly commercialized trope through which consumers areable to forge an ephemeral sense of interpersonal connectionvia common consumption interests (e.g., Muniz and OGuinn

2Nineteeth-century urban third-places, be it the cafe or the pub, werepolitical spaces, used to form alliances and to undertake consensusbuilding.According to Burnham (1993), e.g., the pub played a significant role inthe rising political fortunes of Irish immigrant communities in the latterhalf of the nineteeth century. Hence, the prohibition movement, whicheffectively dismantled these circuits of political organization, had a decidedpolitical and reactionary subtext.



11/13


2001; Schouten and McAlexander 1995). Through these post-modern forms of community, consumers seek a palliative forthe distressing feelings of isolation, inauthenticity, and de-personalization that can be precipitated by the conditions ofpostmodern consumer culture. Absent from these consumeristand therapeutic communal retreats are the sociopolitical agen-

das and goals that formerly animated urban third-places andtheir constituent forms of social capital.

In this study, the consumption practices of cafe flaneurscorrespond to this pessimistic argument about simulatedthird-place experiences. While seeking an experience of public lifeand participation in a broader social spectacle, cafe flaneursthird-place consumption practices are motivated by an apo-litical quest for enjoyable and edifying forms of identity-play,and they express little desire for communal relationshipssteeped in shared political and civic aims (and their concom-itant nexus of reciprocalobligations). However, the third-placepractices of oppositional localists manifest a more pronouncedpolitical and civic orientation. Oppositional localists use localcoffee shops as one means to enact a think globally, act

locally ethos, to engage in discussions and organizationalactivities related to both local and national politics, and toforge connections with consumer activist communities suchas the environmental movement and the fair trade movement.Accordingly, oppositional localists respective identity goalsintersect with ideals of civic responsibility and cohere arounda broader collective project of supporting socially responsible(local) enterprise and contesting corporate hegemony.

In the age of global corporate capitalism, implicit and ex-plicit resistance to transnational economic power is drivingnew and diffuse forms of political organization grounded inthe realpolitik objectives of the antiglobalization movement.The narratives and practices of oppositional localists dem-onstrate that an anachronistic, politicized, and, in some key

respects, more civically minded (and morally committed)form of third-place experience can be reconstituted throughthe resistant identity positions engendered by the dynamicsof glocalization.

SITUATED THEORY TO GO

From a conventional standpoint, our analysis suffers froma number of research limitations. First, our study lacks lon-gitudinal data tracking how consumers become socialized intothe cultural milieus of local coffee shops and the correspond-ing transformations in their outlooks and self-conceptions.Second, cafe flaneurship and oppositional localism certainlydo not exhaust the different ways in which coffee shops can

be experienced. Furthermore, avid Starbucks customers arequite likely to attribute different meanings to this hegemonicbrandscape than our local coffee shop patrons. More generallystill, the Starbucks brand will inevitably assume differentmeanings in different cultural contexts: Seattle coffee shoppatrons may feel a sense of local pride in Starbuckss success;in lower-income urban neighborhoods, Starbuckss outletsmay be viewed as a locus of economic development and aneeded magnet for attracting other retail trade (Yue 2003); inJapan, young adults may view Starbucks as a symbol of an

exciting, fashionable, contemporary lifestyle that breaks freefrom constraining local traditions (Belson 2001).

All these contextual qualifications are noteworthy. How-ever, they would only constitute research limitations in theconventional sense of the term if our research goal had beento generalize the thematic findings to the universe of all coffee

shop patrons or to develop a universal theory of branding.Although commonly viewed as a methodological issue, state-ments of research limitations harbor significant philosophy ofscience complexities.

Yet the epistemological rationales underlying conventionalstatements of research limitations are seldom questioned ormade explicit. As Wells (1993, p. 43) aptly notes, they havebecome a ritualized aspect of journal articles that if takenseriously, the limitations would invalidate the findings. How-ever, these ritualistic statements are in fact taken quite seri-ously because they serve a very serious disciplinary function.They rhetorically assuage the most threatening implicationsof the problem of induction that plagues universalizing theoryclaims: no number of positive empirical confirmations can

prove a theory universally true because there will always existunexplored contexts, populations, or times where the theorymay not hold (Anderson 1986). Accordingly, universalizingtheory claims and the related logic of confirmatory theorytesting are always epistemologically suspect (see Sternthal,Tybout, and Calder 1987).

Our analysis follows in the logic of the interpretive casemethod, which offers a means to advance theoretical argu-ments without making universalizing claims (see Geertz1983).3 In the interpretive case method, the research goal isto provide a cultural analysis of the meanings and actions thatemerge in a given social context. Empiricist questions aresimply not germane to the analytic goals of a cultural analysis(e.g., Do all coffee shops patrons view Starbucks in the same

manner as this sample of consumers? Do all coffee shoppatrons fit the cafe flaneur and oppositional localist classifi-cations?) Questions that do concern a cultural analysis in-clude, What are the cultural conditions that enable these con-sumers in this setting to attribute these particular meaningsto their patronage of local coffee shops? What do these con-textualized meanings, ideals, and experiences say about thebroader cultural currents and tensions that are shaping con-sumer culture? Do existing theories account for these revealedcultural relationships? What novel theoretical linkages andconcepts are suggested by this analysis?

Most fundamentally, interpretive case analyses are used toenrich existing theories and to develop new theoretical con-cepts that can inform subsequent research. Importantly, theseemergent concepts are treated as tools for conducing analyticwork rather than as candidates for universal truth claims. Forexample, consider the concept of brand community (Munizand OGuinn 2001). This empirically grounded theoreticalconstruct has proven to be a useful analytic tool for under-

3The extended case method offers another epistemological approach totheory development that is not contingent upon generalizing empiricalfindings to a broader universe of settings or populations (see Burawoy1991; Holt 2002b).



12/13


standing how brand meanings are embedded in social net-works and become integrated into consumers social worlds(see McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig 2002). Yet, oneshould not expect the meanings, rituals, and values that char-acterize one brand community, such as Jeep owners, to trans-fer to another, say devoted users of Apple computers or Tony

Hawk skateboard enthusiasts, nor do all brands have to en-gender active brand communities for the construct to havetheoretical utility in a variety of consumption contexts.

We developed the construct of the hegemonic brandscapeto cast theoretical light upon relationships between theculturalinfluences exerted by culturally iconic experiential brands andconsumers experiences of glocalization (and their anticor-porate identifications) that prior studies had not interrogated.The consumption issues manifest in our research context pro-vide a fertile ground for developing theoretical linkages be-tween prior conceptualizations of glocalization (Wilk 1995),consumer-brand relationships (Fournier 1998), brand com-munities and oppositional brand loyalty (McAlexander,Schouten and Koenig 2002; Muniz and OGuinn 2001), the

construction of countercultural identities through brand dis-courses (Holt 2004), and finally, the consumption practicesmotivated by emancipatory desires (Kozinets 2002a). In thisway, our cultural analysis of the Starbucks brandscape con-tributes to an emerging disciplinary project that explores howbrand meanings generate consumer identities, social net-works, and marketplace cultures; and, reciprocally, how brandmeanings are individually and collectively appropriated, re-constructed, and, in some cases, contested by consumers.

[Dawn Iacobucci served as editor for this article.]

REFERENCES

Anderson, Paul (1986), On Method in Consumer Research: A Crit-ical Relativist Perspective,Journal of Consumer Research, 13(September), 15573.

Aries, Philippe (1978), The Family and the City, in The Family,ed. Alice Rossi, Jerome Kagan, and Tamara K. Hareven, NewYork: Norton, 22737.

Askegaard, Soren and Fabian Csaba (2000), The Good, the Bad,and the Jolly: Taste, Image, and the Symbolic Resistance to theCoca-Colonization of Denmark, in Imagining Marketing, ed.Stephen Brown and Anthony Patterson, New York: Routledge,21431.

Belson, Ken (2001), As Starbucks Grows, Japan Too, Is Awash,New York Times, Business Section, October 21, BU 45.

Benjamin, Walter (1973), Charles Baudelaire: A Lyric Poet in the

Era of High Capitalism, London: New Left.Brooks, David (2000), BOBOS in Paradise: The New Upper Class

and How They Got There, New York: Simon & Schuster.Brown, Stephen, Robert Kozinets, and John F. Sherry, Jr. (2003),

Teaching Old Brands New Tricks: Retro Branding and theRevival of Brand Meaning, Journal of Marketing, 67 (July),1933.

Burawoy, Michael (1991), The Extended Case Method, in Eth-nography Unbound, ed. Michael Burawoy, Berkeley: Univer-sity of California Press, 27187.

Burnham, John C. (1993), Bad Habits: Drinking, Smoking, Taking

Drugs, Gambling, Sexual Misbehavior, and Swearing in Amer-

ican History, New York: New York University Press.DAndrade, Roy (1990), Cultural Cognition, in Foundations of

Cognitive Science, ed. Michael I. Poser, Cambridge, MA: MITPress, 795830.

Daniels, Cora (2003), Mr. Coffee, Fortune, April 14, 13941.Dawidowska, Katarzyna (2002), Caffeine Overload, American

Demographics, 24 (April), 1617.Falk, Richard (1999), Predatory Globalization, Cambridge: Polity.Featherstone, Mike (1991),Consumer Culture and Postmodernism,

London: Sage.Fonda, Daren (2002) Plucky Little Competitors, Time Business

and Technology online edition, October 13, http://www.time.com/time/business/printout/0,8816,364375,00.html.

Fournier, Susan (1998), Consumers and Their Brands: DevelopingRelationship Theory in Consumer Research,Journal of Con-sumer Research, 24 (March), 34374.

Geertz, Clifford (1983),Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Inter-pretive Anthropology, New York: Basic.

Ger, Guliz and Russell W. Belk (1996), Id Like to Buy the Worlda Coke: Consumptionscapes of the Less Affluent World, Jour-nal of Consumer Policy, 19 (September), 271304.

Hannerz, Ulf (1996), Transnational Connections, New York:Routledge.

Helliker, Kevin and Shirley Leung (2002), Counting Beans: Despitethe Jitters, Most Coffeehouses Survive Starbucks, Wall Street

Journal, September 24, A1, A11.Holmes, Stanley (2002) Planet Starbucks: To Keep Up the Growth,

It Must Go Global Quickly,Business Week Online, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_36/b3798001.htm.

Holt, Douglas B. (2002), Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? ADialectical Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding,Jour-nal of Consumer Research, 29 (June), 7090.

(2003), How to Build an Iconic Brand, Market Leader,21 (Summer), 3542.

(2004),How Brands Become Icons: The Principles of Cul-tural Branding, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School

Press.Klein, Naomi (1999), No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies,

New York: Picador.Kozinets, Robert V. (2002a) Can Consumers Escape the Market?

Emancipatory Illuminations from Burning Man, Journal ofConsumer Research, 29 (June), 2038.

(2002b), The Field behind the Screen: Using Netnographyfor Marketing Research in On-line Communities, Journal of

Marketing Research, 39 (February), 6182.Mazzarella, William (2003), Very Bombay: Contending with

the Global in an Indian Advertising Agency, Cultural An-thropology, 18 (February), 3371.

McAlexander, James, John Schouten, and Harold Koenig (2002),Building Brand Community,Journal of Marketing, 66 (Jan-uary), 3854.

Miller, Daniel (1996), The Myth of Cultural Erosion, in Con-sumption and Macromarketing, ed. Russell W. Belk, Nikhi-lesh Dholakia, and Alladi Venkatesh, Cincinnati: Southwest-ern College Publishing, 15365.

(1998a), Coca-Cola: A Sweet Black Drink from Trini-dad, inMaterial Culture: Why Some Things Matter, ed. Dan-iel Miller, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 16987.

(1998b), A Theory of Shopping, Ithaca, NY: Cornell Uni-versity Press.

Muniz, Albert and Thomas C. OGuinn (2001), Brand Commu-nities,Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (March), 41232.



13/13


Oldenburg, Ray (1989), The Great Good Place, New York: Mar-lowe & Company.

Pine, Joseph B. and James H. Gilmore (1999), The ExperienceEconomy: Work Is Theatre and Every Business Is a Stage,Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Ritzer, George (1993),The McDonaldization of Society, ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Robertson, Roland (1995), Glocalization: Time-Space and Ho-mogeneity-Heterogeneity, in Global Modernities, ed. MikeFeatherstone, Scott Lash, and Roland Robertson, London:Sage, 2544.

Schmitt, Bernd H. (1999), Experiential Marketing: How to GetCustomers to Sense, Feel, Think, Act, and Relate to Your

Company and Brands, New York: Free Press.Schmitt, Bernd H. and Alex Simonson (1996), Marketing Aes-

thetics: The Strategic Management of Brands, Identity, andImage, New York: Free Press.

Schouten, John and James H. McAlexander (1995), Subculturesof Consumption: An Ethnography of the New Bikers, Jour-nal of Consumer Research, 22 (June), 4361.

Sherry, John F. (1995), Bottomless Cup, Plug-Drug: A Teleth-nography of Coffee, Visual Anthropology, 7 (4), 35170.

(1998), The Soul of the Company Store: Nike TownChicago and the Emplaced Brandscape, in ServiceScapes:The Concept of Place in Contemporary Markets, ed. John F.Sherry, Chicago: NTC Business Books, 10946.

Shore, Bradd (1996), Culture in Mind, New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Sternthal, Brian, Alice Tybout, and Bobby J. Calder (1987), Con-firmatory versus Comparative Approaches to Judging TheoryTests,Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (June), 11425.

Thompson, Craig J. (1997) Interpreting Consumers: A Herme-neutical Framework for Deriving Marketing Insights from theTexts of Consumers Consumption Stories, Journal of Mar-keting Research, 34 (November), 43855.

Thompson, Craig, William B. Locander, and Howard R. Pollio(1989), Putting Consumer Experience Back into ConsumerResearch: The Philosophy and Method of Existential-Phe-nomenology, Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (Septem-ber), 13347.

Thompson, Craig J. and Siok Kuan Tambyah (1999), Trying toBe Cosmopolitan, Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (De-cember), 21441.

Wells, William (1993), Discovery-Oriented Research, Journalof Consumer Research, 19 (March), 489505.

Wilk, Richard (1995), Learning to Be Local in Belize: GlobalSystems of Common Difference, in Worlds Apart: ModernityThrough the Prism of the Local, ed. Daniel Miller, London:

Routledge, 11031.Yue, Lorene (2003), Perks Often Follow Coffee Shop: Starbucks

Signals Retailing Ripeness, Chicago Tribuneonline edition,October 26, http://www.chicagotribune.com/archives.

Starbucks Article (1)

Documents

Transcript of Starbucks Article (1)