Bucking the current trend and the collective frowning toward “supersize” anything, Starbucks proves once again the company is following its own marketing path. Let the proverbial chips fall where they may! In January, the company unveiled its colossal new 31 ounce drink size: Trenta.
Wow! Way to go? Or wrong way to go? While consumers “tsk tsk” about oversized meals and beverages in restaurants and fast food joints, many get more than a little pleasure, albeit guilty, in over-indulging. Let’s be truthful here. So the question remains: Is this a major marketing faux pas or a stroke of genius?
Nutritionists are undoubtedly alarmed at the possibility of consumers adding up to 200 calories per day—depending on their beverage of choice. And 200 additional calories per day adds up to 2 more pounds per month. Yikes!
And what about the amount of caffeine in 31 ounce coffee concoctions? While our culture has become increasingly caffeinated on high-voltage energy drinks and larger and larger mugs of coffee, I wonder when the human body’s tolerance is maxed out!
What do you think of this move? Is Starbucks going to cash in on our more-is-better consumer craze? Or are they going the wrong way now that consumers have said “no” to excess in every way, shape, and form? Or does Starbucks know something we don’t know? Are consumers saying “no” while their actions say “yes” to supersized portions still?
I’d love to get your take on Starbucks’ latest marketing move, Daily Fix readers, whether you’ve indulged in the 31 ounce Trenta or not.
Tags: decision making, Marketing Strategy, trends
Ted … take a ride on the way back machine and revisit when Starbucks launched the Venti size. Much the same comments were said about portion control and the size being too darn big. However, customers have OVERWHELMINGLY decided the Venti is worth purchasing and drinking. (The customer ultimately knows best, right?) I’m betting customers will vote with their wallets and make the Trenta successful. As you know, customers will say one thing with their mouths and another with their wallets. Dig?
(Keep in mind, the biggest issue Starbucks will face is back-of-the-house stuff. Managing inventory will be hard but harder will be finding space to store the huge boxes holding those Trenta cusp. Starbucks backrooms are tiny.)
John, thanks for commenting and sharing your insights with us. As a past Sbux marketer, your insights carry some weight! I think this move on Sbux’s part is going to be very interesting. As consumers, we have been conditioned for some time now to purchase fast food and drinks that are “supersized”. However, in the past couple of years, nutritionists and consumer watchdog groups have been working to change the culture of “supersized as greater value”; their vantage point: “supersize means tons of extra calories we really don’t need”. So in essence, a tug of war has been created. Which will win out with customers? The little angel whispering in the right ear or the little devil prodding in the left ear? It’s going to be interesting to see which wins out. As you so wisely said, John, the customer will vote with their wallets. Agreed.
Ted:
From a pure coffee drinker perspective, here is a sample of one comment – as much as i like almost everything Sbux does from a marketing perspective, it doesn’t seem to have done its “experience” homework here (or maybe, doesn’t care). But i find when i order my customary “tall” coffee (what the rest of the world calls large), I can barely get halfway thru before it turns unusually cool, then undrinkably cold. The last couple of ounces is invariably tossed (or masochistically chugged – blech).
If Sbux is going to allow a reheat on the Trenta, then i say OK (which would add to the “back of the house” problem that John Moore points out!). If no reheat, then I say “tall” please.
Kevin, You raise a very good point, and I thank you for making it in response to my post. With all brands, customer experience is one of the most important aspects of consumer buy-in. Even great Sbux fans will be turned off, as you point out, if the new drink doesn’t measure up to expectation. You’re quite right: by the time most of us get to the bottom few ounces of a hot drink it isn’t so hot anymore. And it can taste pretty nasty. Can Trenta be successful under these circumstances? Hmmm, I’m sure some hardcore Sbux fans won’t mind drinking it hot or cold. Feedback will pour in fast and furious on a number of blog sites: it won’t take long to find out.
I suspect John Moore is right:
* Starbucks has probably seen an increase in the proportion of its sales coming from venti, and
* Starbucks has probably done research showing the percentage of people willing to buy a 31-oz. cup.
Even if McDonalds and others have been criticized for “super-sizing” America, I bet Starbucks knows something about what people say vs. what people do. And I fear that Starbucks is right in thinking that Trenta is going to be a winner among one segment of the market.
Hi Bill, John Moore has great insights into the Starbucks brand. No question. And you’re right: Sbux analyzes its business and researches everything before introducing new products in its stores. Just remember one thing: they have had their fair share of missteps, in spite of it. They’re not always right. I like what you opined here: “Trenta is going to be a winner among one segment of the market.” There will always be a percentage of consumers who go for the supersize product, no matter what. Question is: will that be a large enough percentage to make Trenta a success? Thanks, Bill. I appreciate your comments.
I’m sure Sbux did test marketing, and the testing said do it.
Hi Derek, Thanks for making a good point. You can be Starbucks brought in focus groups and/or conducted limited market testing before launching the Trenta. But as I mentioned to Bill, that hasn’t made every product introduction a success. Funny thing about testing: consumers often say one thing and do quite another. CPG companies know that and so do fast food operations. I find it fascinating that Sbux is bucking the current cultural trend away from “supersizing”. Are consumers really on the upward curve of this new trend or is it wishful thinking for nutrionists and watchdog groups? We’re about to find out.
This is really a question? Americans have a strange love-affair where anything in moderation that’s good must be that much better when it comes out of the back of a dump truck.
Rest assured there will be people in line for these things as assuredly as they are obese.
Hi Rich, LOL at your comments. There’s much truth in your well articulated statements. Question: do you think the culture is shifting enough to start pulling away from the “more is better” syndrome? Thanks for weighing in on my post.
We wrote a post about this very issue, which you can read here: http://bit.ly/ikcviS. The principles of agile product development suggest that responding to customer expressed desire with a release that meets their request is the way to go. But what if inherently what they want isn’t what they need? In our industry, public relations, when the client requests that we develop materials that won’t serve them well or undertake activities that we know won’t achieve a desired result, we push back and say no. Sometimes the client concedes and sometimes they don’t. However, there are lots of other agencies that will veer hard from best practices in the name of the almighty dollar. We are not them.
Alexandra: Principles are important and it’s nice to see you stand for what you feel are in your clients’ best interests, even if that doesn’t necessarily mesh with their wants. Companies walk a fine line. Many want to give the customer what they want while balancing that with being a good corporate citizen and the need to make money and profits. It isn’t always easy. And it isn’t totally a black and white issue, either. Should companies like Sbux, for example, offer the Trenta based on their internal research knowing that consumers may drink far too many caffeinated, sugary drinks at the expense of their health? Where do corporate responsibilities begin and end and where do customers’ begin and end? Thanks for bringing some important issues to the fore, Alexandra. I appreciate your comments very much.
Starbuck is very smart. There is probably a niche of Starbucks junkies who crave caffiene like no tomorrow. But remember, they also have non coffee drinks as well. I remember back in the day in my sugar crazed high school years my friends and I always craved the frappuchinos (sp?) and since we were broke, we often shared a large and still wanted more! Now the site of it turns me off completely with all that sugar but the point is that there is a market for it. Furthermore, there are plenty of coffeeholics who treat coffee like water. Yes, I am concern with their health but it is the choice to consume that much caffeine. Like the commenters previously said, data said do it!
On a health standpoint, according to the recommendations of the university of Illinois, about 300mg (3 cu assuming 8oz/serv.) is considered MODERATE intake for healthy individuals. So a 31oz trenta is about 4 cups and still, according to a medical standpoint, just a bit above moderate. Now the issue is if people get more than one trenta on most days a week. There should be concern then. Over time, high consumption of caffeine not including coffee (think cola, energy drinks, chocolate, tea in addition) can raise blood sugar levels and may lead to hypertension. You know what that means? Increase incidence and prevalence of major life shortening diseases like heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Note that this results from insane caffeine consumption throughout many years. Basically, a trenta is not going to kill you, but it is the amount of overall caffeine that may. (this is coming from a perspective of someone with a college degree in nutrition)
Hi Rachel,
It’s nice to hear from a nutritionist in regard to this post. Thanks for weighing in. You’re quite right: moderation is the key to everything we choose to eat or drink. And yes, there are a good many people who are addicted to caffeine in its many forms. While research on Starbucks’ part likely led the company to supersize its drink offerings to a whole new level, I’m still going to be interested to see how successful it is in actuality. There will always be those consumers who can’t get enough of a good thing. That’s a given. But how many other consumers will this appeal to, is my question. Enough to make Trenta a smashing success? Or not?
Hmm… I see your point, but I am still firm to my beliefs that it would be quite successful, not a major success. How to measure the difference, I would not know. Assuming that proper research is done, there is an untapped market for the super caffeinated consumers. If I am not mistaken, I believe at one point the tall and grande for the cold drink were actually quite a bit bigger. I can’t recall the venti because I never had one. But, what do you speculate? Do you think it will be a success? Or is it just a way to get publicity?
Hard to tell, Rachel. Here’s the reason: unless it’s a roaring success or a total flop, how can we judge whether the new supersize meets Sbux threshold of success? We’re all on the outside looking in. I’m sure the company brass have set a bar they hope and expect to meet for this new size intro. We have no way of knowing what that is. Here’s the thing: we might find out, as you suggest, if the company quietly removes this size in a few months’ time, or downsizes it a bit. . .to Kevin’s excellent point, what if consumers resist because hot beverages get cold before they can be entirely consumed? Answer: downsize it, right? Great conversation, Rachel. Your insights are well thought out, and articulated. Thank you.
Starbucks, Starbucks. Just tell me when Canadian Tim Horton’s takes over the US. Better and cheaper coffee, plus damn good muffins and donuts. Canajan, eh?
Ha! You tell me, Elaine. It’s got to be tough having allegiances to Canada and the U.S. eh? You rightfully love the land of your birth and you’re a good American to boot. Americanadian? Sounds good. Thanks for being so light, witty and engaging, Elaine. Love it! That’s why you’re a social media expert!
[...] Supersizing Starbucks: By now you’ve probably heard of Starbuck’s new 31 ounce “Trenta’ size (that’s a whole ‘lotta coffee!) – MarketingProfs asks, “Is Starbucks going in the wrong direction, offering more to a society that is trending toward cutting out the excess”? What do you think? Smart move by Starbucks? [...]
Ted … keep in mind, the Trenta size is only in cold cups so the keeping coffee hot issue is a non-issue. The success measurement will be just as you and Rachel have pointed out. If the Trenta is on the menu 18-months from now, it’s successful enough to merit being on the menu.
Back in my days at SBUX, when new beverages were launched it had to pass the threshold of selling at a minimum 20 to 25 units per store per day (USDs) to be considered a menu mainstay. For the Trenta, I would suspect that the threshold would be a little higher. Perhaps 30 to 35 units per day. So if a SBUX has 700 transactions in a day, about 5% of those transactions would need to include a Trenta size beverage.
John,
Thanks for adding new insights to this thread. Much appreciated. The assumption was made that the new Trenta size would be applicable to all beverages: hot or cold. Never assume, right? I think we might agree, however, that Trenta presents buyers with an awful lot of calories and sugar in many drinks. This is a lot of beverage to consume! Getting some idea from you, as a former Sbux marketer, about the ROI the company would be looking for in its latest effort, helps us a great deal. We’ll be paying attention to see whether Trenta stays, or goes quietly away in the coming months.
In January, Starbucks announced the Trenta size was to be rolled out nationally. Most, if not all, major media mentions included the fact Trenta was for cold beverages (example – http://reut.rs/h8Y39A).
As a marketer Ted you know that products, programs, and services do not grow sales. Companies can offer new products, programs, and services but only customers (people who buy the stuff) grow sales.
Should SBUX not offer something that has been passed the “customer test” in test markets? Customers can get a Iced Trenta Non-Fat Sugar Free Vanilla Latte and not get overloaded with sugar, fat, and calories. That’s the beauty of choice. Customers can choose to go the indulgent path (Iced Breve Trenta Extra Vanilla Latte) or choose the less indulgent of skim milk and sugar free syrup. Should SBUX not offer customers choice? That would go against the mass customization angle that has helped to make SBUX so successful.
I don’t mean to be testy here. Just wanted to state an opinion and share how it’s been publicized the Trenta is only for cold beverages.
John,
Your additional comments are thought provoking and thank you for making them. First, you already did make the point about the Trenta size being offered only for cold drinks. Thank you. This was an oversight and an assumption based on the fact the company’s other sizes serve for both. Secondly, new products and sizes of popular products are the life blood of consumer product companies. Thirdly, companies test new products and sizes all of the time, but for some mysterious reason, up to 90% of new product intros fail in the marketplace in spite of testing. I’m sure as a marketer that you know that, too. Should Sbux offer choice? You bet they should. Is it up to consumers to choose what they want? I’ve always said that consumers vote with their wallets. And it’s up to them to make their own choices. That’s the beauty of a capitalist system. There should be lots of choices and consumers need to make up their own minds. Mass customization has been hugely successful for a number of companies from Starbucks to Dell. My point about Trenta is this: our culture is moving away from “supersizing” given the spotlight on food and beverage calorie consumption in general. So the question remains: is Sbux bucking a changing consumer culture? That’s what is really at the heart of my post. Thanks, John, for your comments, testy or not.
Many people at my local coffee shop go up for refills and I’ve seen people order quadruple shots of espresso. A big cup of coffee just gets a lot of caffeine into one cup. Why someone would want one massive cup of coffee is beyond me but some people will and that’s no big deal.
The real problem out there at restaurants and coffee shops is people harming or even ruining their health with really high calorie drinks and food. It is death by a thousand cuts.
Hi Neil,
Thanks for weighing in on my post. I appreciate your comments, as ever. No wonder everybody’s “Sleepless in Seattle”! You know, choice is what our free enterprise, capitalist system is all about. That’s why there are countless choices in the marketplace. While many of us love our caffeinated beverages, iced teas, etc, there’s a limit to how much we can consume without experiencing deleterious effects. But “to each his own”. We all need to take responsibility for our decisions, right?
Yes, we need to be responsible for our decisions. Absolutely. I take full responsibility for my excessive consumption of coffee.
I love it.
On the other hand, I do think that companies have a responsibility here too. In the case of the tobacco companies, people made the decision to smoke but the tobacco companies were actively marketing harmful products and sometimes suppressing data.
I’d say we are running into a similar situation with spectacularly unhealthy food. Sure, the individual decides to eat too much bad food but the companies are putting it out there and marketing it aggressively. It’s hard to avoid just as cigarettes were once pretty hard to avoid. See Madmen.
As a result, we’re experiencing a public health crises. It is no coincidence that this is happening now. The food industry should take some responsibility or this is going to come back and bite them hard. I really wish this industry would take a back and take a hard look at what they are creating and marketing. Don’t you think they could make very good profits with healthier food that’s still compelling to the consumer? Of course, people don’t want to be unhealthy.
I’m not slamming the food industry, btw. I really like food but just in moderation.
Neil,
You’ve articulated some important points here and I thank you. Quite right: everybody needs to take responsibility, consumers and companies both. I will say that there has been considerable push-back from consumers as they’ve educated themselves which have forced some good changes in the food industry. For example, the increased pounds people have put on due to the liberal use of ultra sweet, cheap high fructose corn syrup over the past few decades have led to backlash. As a result, manufacturers are dumping HFCS and advertising the fact on their packaging. Ditto when it comes to cutting salt and replacing table salt with sea salt as a better alternative. Or harmful fats with better, vegetable-based ones like canola or olive oil. The list goes on and on. But here’s the ultimate issue: that still doesn’t deal with portion sizes, does it? Here, too, consumers need to understand what a portion truly is; years of oversizing have muddied this issue. And let’s face it: we tend to eat more of our favorite foods than we should. This ought to give manufacturers impetus to help educate consumers about portion sizes; and we have an obligation as consumers to find that out on our own initiative, as well. Right? Thanks, Neil, for adding substantially to this post.
Yes, I’m glad some of these things are happening but some of it is pretty thin (excuse the pun) so far. Replacing corn syrup with some other almost as bad sweetener. HFCS seems to be marginally worse than other sweeteners. Removing them is a response to a current popular idea that HFCS is especially bad. The research is ambiguous on this topic. While it is probably a step in the right direction to remove it, I wonder if it gives the illusion that people are doing something good for their health? If people still consume too much sugar, then they are basically still damaging their health. Even if all HFCS were replaced with cane sugar, you’d still see lots of obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and all the other serious health problems that can and do result from the modern diet.
Honestly, I’ve seen some small changes for the better and maybe gradual change is the best we can hope for at this point. But I kind of see this as a pivot point where we have generations of people with serious health problems and declining quality of life or we turn the corner and see the momentum shift the other direction. I’m not optimistic at this point. I would hope the food industry, that plays a key role in all this, will step up and help move the momentum the other direction. It is certainly like turning a large ship and will take time.
One look at the health situation and you quickly realize this is serious business…
No doubt about it, Neil. “Marginally better” is the best way to describe some of these changes. However, let me point out that something like HFCS and refined sugar are worse than natural sweeteners that haven’t been chemically altered. At least the body can process those. Ditto for margarine vs butter. Is too much of even a natural sugar a bad thing? You bet. Again, lessening the amount of sugar in foods will take retraining our palates that have gotten used to a lot of sugar, right? And as I said, we all have a responsibility, too, to restrain ourselves from consuming too much sugar, salt, fats, etc, etc. As you said so well, it takes time to change our culture but the momentum is slowly moving in the right direction. Great discussion, Neil. Thank you for all of your well articulated insights.
I think we may be missing something really obvious here. Let’s accept that there’s a trend in the U.S. against supersizing. (I haven’t seen that, myself. But let’s accept that.) And let’s assume that there’s a move against excess of all sorts–not just in sizing but in excess consumption of things that are bad healthwise. (Again, I certainly haven’t seen that. But let’s go with it.)
Now, if those trends exist, then it’s certainly possible that Starbucks is concerned about consumers downsizing their selections. And maybe the company has actually seen a trend toward downsizing.
If so, the introduction of the Trenta is nothing short of brilliant.
Huh?
Consider: A consumer goes into Starbucks. He/she looks at the range of sizes available. There’s Tall, Grande, and Venti. The consumer is health conscious and not comfortable with supersizing. So, while the Venti might be tempting, the consumer downsizes to the Grande. Maybe that’s what’s currently happening.
Revised scenario: A consumer goes into Starbucks. He/she looks at the range of sizes available. There’s Tall, Grande, Venti, and Trenta. The consumer is health conscious and not comfortable with supersizing. So, while the Trenta might be tempting, the consumer downsizes to the . . . Venti.
It’s possible that the introduction of the Trenta is actually a defensive action and a reframing of the consumer’s choices. Maybe it’s intended to shore up sales of the Venti. And meanwhile, Starbucks may actually sell a reasonable amount of Trenta-sized beverages to the folks who are really thirsty, who are looking for a “bargain” (50% more for just 50 cents more), or for people who will gravitate to the biggest, baddest thing around.
It’s a win-win for Starbucks. If consumers buy it, they obviously win. And if consumers “downsize” to the Venti, they win.
Hi Don,
Interesting perspective. Thanks for weighing in on my post. First, let me say that I believe our culture is in transition in some ways. That includes the whole notion of supersizing portions of food and beverage as well as overconsumption in many areas. Much of this is also being dictated by the stark reality of our current economic situation, as well. Lots of customers are cutting back substantially and are unlikely to pony up more money for jumbo drinks. Does that mean there aren’t folks who will still splurge on supersized meals and drinks? No; it doesn’t. There will always be people who love to indulge in more of a good thing. Question is: will there be enough to make Trenta a rousing success, a middling one or will it be a flop?
[...] Supersizing Starbucks: By now you’ve probably heard of Starbuck’s new 31 ounce “Trenta’ size (that’s a whole ‘lotta coffee!) – MarketingProfs asks, “Is Starbucks going in the wrong direction, offering more to a society that is trending toward cutting out the excess”? What do you think? Smart move by Starbucks? [...]