Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Star Buck Strategyies
Star Buck Strategyies
Strategic Management
Report
By Navneet Madan
0|Page
Contents
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 3
Background .......................................................................................................................... 3
Company Analysis ............................................................................................................... 3
External Analysis ................................................................................................................. 4
Industry Value and Growth.................................................................................................. 4
Porter’s Five Forces and PESTLE Analysis ........................................................................ 6
UK Consumers’ Brand Perception of Starbucks and Its Competitors ............................... 11
Internal Analysis and Competitor Analysis ....................................................................... 13
Competitive Analysis and Distinctive Position against Competitors ................................ 16
Concluding Internal and External Analysis ....................................................................... 18
Competitive Advantage: .................................................................................................... 19
Strategic Options................................................................................................................ 20
Strategic Directions............................................................................................................ 21
Suitability, Acceptability and Feasibility........................................................................... 23
Strategic Method:............................................................................................................... 26
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 26
Recommendation ............................................................................................................... 27
Reflection ........................................................................................................................... 27
APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................ 28
APPENDIX 1 ..................................................................................................................... 28
APPENDIX 2:.................................................................................................................... 29
Bibliography....................................................................................................................... 30
Executive Summary
1|Page
A Fortune 500 company, Starbucks share prices reached its peak in 2006 and declined
unexpectedly in 2008. Although its business has picked up in 2011 with an increase in
operating profits, Starbucks has lost its market leader position to Costa, a chain coffee shop
business owned by Whitbread plc. Starbucks’ strategic issues are its decrease in marketshare,
negative brand perception that was invoked by its competitors and its devalued Starbucks’
Experience that was its competitive advantage. A situational analysis of Starbucks was
conducted to indicate possible opportunities and threats. Internal analysis and competitor
Development and Market development were assessed for their suitability, acceptability and
feasibility. Strategic choices that unravel three issues that Starbucks is challenged with are
Please note that this report contains 3209 words. Figures, captions and in-text referencing are
excluded from the word count.
2|Page
Introduction
Background
Starbucks started in 1971 as a small shop but today its diversified business sells everything
from freshly brewed coffees, bakery, tea and coffee consumer products and merchandises
such as mugs and accessories(Starbucks, 2011). Globalization driven, it is one of the fastest
growing businesses today namely 261 on the Fortune 500(Grant, 2010). Its mission statement
is (Starbucks, 2011)
Company Analysis
Reached its peak in 2006(Grant, 2010) it had a stock increase of 26.7% per year over the
period of 1996/2006. There is a high correlation stating that Starbucks brand image
contributes 88.5% to its high stock price(Perera et al., 2009). However, case study analysis
conducted for the first assignment shows frontal attack of Starbucks(Baines et al., 2008) by
major fast food chains including McDonalds and Dunkin Donut after which its stock price
declined(Grant, 2010). A market leader in the coffee industry in 2006 in UK its share prices
decreased unexpectedly and consumer’s cafe survey in 2008 claimed it had poor quality and
was overpriced(Hickman, 2008). Starbucks marketshare fell in 2009(item1), then its overall
market share increased again but in UK it’s a different case. UK market hasn’t been kind,
3|Page
Item 1 Starbucks Stock Price from 2006 to April 2011 (YahooFinance, 2011)
While Starbucks has closed many of its outlets, possibly because of its flawed location-
2011b). The research will address Starbucks’ issues in regards to its market share, brand
External Analysis
In 2010, the coffee shop market grew to £1.2 million, but UK industry is at a mature
growth stage(Kotler, 2003)(FIGURE1) where growth is evident but slower than the
previous years(Mintel, 2011b). Mintel forecasts positive growth till 2015, but UK is
expected to face another round of recession(Mintel, 2011b) hence, a slower growth till
2012 (FIGURE2).
4|Page
UK Coffee
Retailing
While half of consumers who drink coffee visit coffee shops, this figure has remained
unchanged for years supporting that it is certainly in the mature stage (Mintel, 2011b). As
Johnson describes, at the mature stage we should expect “low growth, standard products
higher entry barriers, higher marketshare and lowest cost” is the key to success(Johnson,
Scholes, & Whittington, 2008). Mintel provides the best and the worst case forecasts
5|Page
£1.14(worst case). It is depicted that the market will grow to a value of £1.51 billion in
2015.
6|Page
Figure 4 SOURCES OF INFO (Grant, 2010; Keynote, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Mintel, 2011b;
Porter, 2004)
7|Page
Political Economic
1. Relationship with coffee producing 1. Price Volatility of coffee which
nations(Grant,2010) depends on demand and
2. Higher VAT tax in UK(Mintel,2010b) supply.(Grant,2010)
3. Fair Trade 2. Shock in fall of GDP may stir up double
Coffee(GaleAmericanIndustryOverview dip recession(Mintel,2010b)
s, 2006) 3. Lower disposable
income(Keynote,2010b)
4. Lower supply and higher demand of
coffee leads to expected increase in
prices of coffee
due(emergingmarketsmonitor,2011)
Legal Environmental
High coffee trade 1. Increase in price of coffee due to bad
regulations(Grant,2010) weather conditions and diseases in
coffee producing nation
Brazil.(EMERGINGMARKETSMONITOR,
2011)
A tea drinking nation, UK has also experienced tea price rises which have set the highest
record this year(Mintel, 2011b). However, tea suppliers have differentiated their products
8|Page
to increase value and charge a higher price, by offering specialty tea for different
moods(Mintel, 2011b).Energy drinks have gained importance since they are better energy
boosters than coffee itself(Mintel, 2011b). Energy drinks are popular with the young, who
are also users of coffee shops(Keynote, 2010b). Buyers who are ABC1 social
products(Mintel, 2011a; Porter, 1979), and consumer needs that can be fulfilled by non-
2011)
Supplier power is elevated by Fair-trade coffee where beans are made from growers who
depend on demand and supply causing small farmers to sometimes get deficient
collaborate with coffee farmers in order to source the finest coffee available. Due to large
amounts required - Starbucks, Costa and Cafe Nero still buy from independent farmers
who have unions backing them(Porter, 1979), hence suppliers have medium power.
9|Page
Prices of the coffee depend on environmental factors such as weather conditions, coffee
producing nation’s economy, and given that bad weather conditions and diseases have
ever(Emergingmarketsmonitor, 2011). Current coffee shops are unable to absorb the price
increase due to VAT increase and extremely high coffee prices(Mintel, 2011b), this is
unlikely to attract new small entrants. Ability to buy in bulk, increase in capital
requirements, and access to target market specific locations will discourage small
who want a piece of the low growth and there is fear that coffee shops are losing their
unique selling point(USP)(Mintel, 2011b). Direct competitors as Costa, Cafe Nero and
Coffee Nation are extremely competitive and are expansion minded(Porter, 1979).
Although the product has high differentiation there is variety of differentiated options
available and combined with lower disposable income this contributes to medium buyer
power. These competitors are also very innovative with their menus and have changed
menus in the two years to follow consumer increasing unmet needs(Mintel, 2011b).
10 | P a g e
Market share
% change in Total store
Operator by turnover Turnover (%)
share yr/yr numbers
(%)
Costa Coffee 37.6 462 29.8 1175
Starbucks 32.4 398 6.7 731
Caffe Nero 14.3 176 10 440
Caffe Ritazza 2.5 n/a n/a 109
Coffee
1.5 19 11.8 83
Republic
AMT Coffee 1.5 19 26.7 59
Café
0.9 12 9.1 42
Thorntons
Puccino's 0.8 10 -33.3 38
Esquires 0.7 9 12.5 33
Soho Coffee
0.4 5 25 19
Company
Boston Tea
0.4 5 25 9
Party
Coffee#1 0.3 4 33.3 15
Caffe Fratelli 0.3 4 33.3 12
Morelli's
Cappuccino 0.2 n/a n/a 7
Bars
Gloria Jeans
0.1 n/a n/a 2
UK
Others 6 n/a n/a 399
The intensity of competition is high where Costa presents strong rates of sales and
operating profit and shown in Figure7 Costa has higher market share. UK is a tea drinking
nation, and increase in ageing population does not have a positive effect on coffee shop
lifestyles in the next years will unquestionably have a positive effect since women prefer
seated coffee bars than they prefer restaurants and pubs(Keynote, 2010a).
value for money due to lower disposable income has lead consumers to perceive
11 | P a g e
Costa(Mintel, 2011b), consumers’ are unaware, and therefore perceive Costa higher,
12 | P a g e
Picture 3 (Mintel, 2011b)
The key success factors for this industry is strong relationship with coffee suppliers(Grant,
2010), strong brand loyalty(Clark, 2009), positive brand perception, fast paced innovation for
new product creation and location which is ability to secure new distribution channels where
competitors haven’t been located in. They should also have a unique selling point that isn’t
easily imitated. Most importantly, “quick coffee on the go” will certainly benefit due to
increase in number of working women who are about to have busier lifestyles(Keynote,
13 | P a g e
Competitive Industry Key Success
Advantage Factors
• Location (Keynote,2010b)
The Starbucks Strategy • Financial capability
experience • Market share
• Differentiation, medium
Is it still valued? Distinctive Capabilities Pricing Strategy and
quality(Mintel,2010b)
•Glocalised, strategy, a community coffee shop
• Quick coffee on the go
•Continuous innovation • Fast paced innovation
•Financial strength evident from total asset . • Brand awareness, loyalty
and Brand
perception(Mintel,2010)
Resources
Intangible
Tangible Human Resource
•Technology: It’s R& D. Continuous
Innovation(Datamonitor,2010) •Baristas are extensively trained
• Net loss in UK service for coffee (Grant,2011)
£52,106,000 for 2009 •Reputation: High Brand
(Mintel,2011b) awareness, reached bonding stage. •“It is not unusual to have a chat with
But UK customers have negative Baristas”(Starbucks,2011)
• Total Physical Assets: perception that its coffee is
$5672.6 million overpriced. (Mintel,2011b) •Increased motivation with benefits:
full health coverage (Starbucks,2011)
(Grant,2010) •Culture: Organisational culture : a
shared planet and a harmonistic •Equity through Bean Stock
environment for employees. (Grant, programme (Starbucks,2011)
2010 Starbucks,2011)
Since Starbucks has continuously raised consumer expectations for years(Mintel, 2011b), it
has become the benchmarking point for all coffee companies including Costa. Extensive
training of Baristas to be friendly, their ability to make coffee and develop relationship with
consumers is now just a Threshold resource(Johnson, et al., 2008). Starbucks has successfully
associated corporate social responsibility, high quality and inspiring to its brand name
(picture1, 2, and 3). Nevertheless, it’s extremely overpriced coffee constitutes to consumers’
perception that it cares only about profits not excluding the fact that it supports huge causes
extremely high prices, as quality is established by all competitors including Costa (Mintel,
2011b), espresso machines(Grant, 2010) and instant coffees. For example: exactly the pattern
14 | P a g e
faced in U.S where McDonalds coffee was rated to taste better than Starbucks. Similarly, UK
agency Tangible tested 157 samples and concluded that 7 out of 10 consumers prefer Costa’s
Mocha Italia beans over Starbucks(Mintel, 2011b). As shown in Item2, tastes for all strategic
Although criticised on quality, the core strength behind Starbucks’ brand is still the quality of
its products due to its ability to continuously innovate. Starbucks’s strong R&D capability in
being a first mover at the gourmet coffee shop market(Grant, 2010). In addition, Starbucks
also has intangibles such as established relationships with Kraft foods(Datamonitor, 2010),
An advocacy brand that attracts repeat consumers, it creates a strong brand with a healthy use
strong bonds with a consumer which further translates into profits(Woodward, 2011).
Although it lags behind Costa, its mission to be a community coffee shop and its contribution
15 | P a g e
to the community, can help create interpersonal relationships between the consumers and the
STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE
Although Starbucks tries to target lower income individuals by decreasing prices of cheaper
drinks by £0.25 and increasing prices of its higher prices by £0.25(Mintel, 2011b), which
shows that it would like to have a broader target, it still holds a differentiation focus since
main targets for coffee shops are ABC1 social grade segment as described above. Shown in
Figure9, when compared to its close competitor Costa, Starbucks has core competences such
16 | P a g e
as fast paced innovation, its marketing capability but lowered due to negative brand
perception (picture1,2&3), and its extension line of coffee on the go will be valuable for the
Human Resource: ensures highest working standards for all types of employees, excellent health benefits
Technology & Development: Innovation capability on foodservice, coffee and taste
innovation
Figure 11 Porter's Value Chain Analysis Source of Info: (Datamonitor, 2010; Grant, 2010; Starbucks, 2011; Woodward, 2011)
17 | P a g e
Concluding Internal and External Analysis
As shown in the value chain(Figure10), Starbucks’ rare and inimitable capabilities include
2010), negative brand perception, market share, taste and accessibility(picture 1,2&3), and
it’s Starbuck experience does not give high value for money like the price charged. Major
threats include future high coffee prices, ageing population, energy drink popularity and
entrance of more non-speciality shops. Opportunities include working women with busier
lifestyles, significance of social media marketing, value for money trend, and importance of
localisation.
18 | P a g e
Opportunity/Threat O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 T1 T2 T3 T4
Strength/weakness Increase in Use of Value for Importance Expected Higher Ageing Energy Penetration
working
women with
busier
lifestyles
technology: money of
Social Media trend
and Geo-
fencing
future coffee
Localisation growth for prices and
UK market demand
volatility
population drink
popularity
of non-
specialty to
sell coffee +-
Strength 1: Marketing 3 4 5 4 5 0 3 3 4 31 0
capability
Strength 2:High Financial 3 5 4 3 3 -4 0 -3 -2 18 -9
Capability: Total Assets
Strength 3: 4 3 4 2 5 -4 2 2 4 26 -4
Innovation Capability
Strength 4: 2 0 2 5 2 0 2 0 3 16 0
human-resource(culture)
Strength 5: 0 0 3 0 4 3 0 0 0 10 0
Relationship with coffee
suppliers
-2 0 -2 -4 -4 0 -2 0 -3 0 -17
W1: operation (product
recalls)
W2: Starbucks experience: -3 4 -5 -4 -4 0 -4 -3 -4 9 -45
not high value for money.
W3: Negative brand -3 5 -4 -3 -3 0 0 -2 -3 21 -29
perception
W4: Lower market share 3 3 4 3 3 -3 -2 -3 -3 16 -26
than competitor
W5: Taste of product and -2 0 0 -3 -2 -2 0 -2 -4 0 -15
Accessibility of Starbucks
Store
Environmental Impact 15 24 22 17 22 3 7 5 11
Scores -10 0 -11 -14 -13 -13 -8 -13 -19
Figure 12 SWOT MATRIX (Johnson et al., 2008) Reasons for values are justified in the Appendix 2.
Competitive Advantage:
Starbuck’s core competencies is its brand awareness, its relationship with suppliers,
relationship with big companies (Pepsi-Cola and Kraft)(Grant, 2010) and its proficiency in
2010).
19 | P a g e
It’s “Starbucks Experience” is rare, inimitable but not as valuable as in 2006 either(Barney,
1995). Shown in SWOT Matrix, Starbucks’ main issue is its diluted Starbucks Experience
that doesn’t express value for money which should improve to create a sustainable
marketing capability, innovative capability and financial resources to create more intangible
“branding, advertising, design, service quality and new product development”(Grant, 2010).
Strategic Options
Differentiation
Base
Focused
Market Penetration
Market Development
Strategic options Stra tegic Directions:
Product Development
Organic Development
Strategic Method
Alliances: Licensing
and Franching
20 | P a g e
Strategic Directions
Already an industry standard, Starbucks’ strategic lock in(Johnson et al., 2008) and its strong
Figure 14 Ansoff Matrix (Johnson et al., 2008) Source of info (Starbucks, 2011, Aaker, 2005)
advertising to gain more consumers and revitalize its brand to hold current consumers.
According to WPP, when a brand reaches the Bonding stage, it has emotional benefits
and is willing to pay much higher. Although Starbucks has reached that stage in US
21 | P a g e
and with some segments in UK(Clark, 2011), it needs to gather more consumers who
are at the Bonding stage that will be willing to pay high and increase its marketshare.
Starbucks should also develop new products targeted to the emerging working
women who are expected to have busier lifestyles, hence, a low calorie coffee drink
on the go. Apart from this, due to the growing popularity of energy drinks, Starbucks
has already created an energy boosting coffee drink(Starbucks, 2011). Its current
(picture1,2,3) and as stated earlier location is also a KSF. The suitability of the
22 | P a g e
Strength Weakness
Figure 16 TOWS MATRIX (Johnson et al., 2008) Source of information (Grant, 2010, Gallaugher and Ransbotham, 2010,
Datamonitor, 2010)
“Suitability” is whether a strategy is addressing the key issues of the company in this case:
“Suitability” for Market Penetration options provided above is that it is advantageous for
opportunities such as maintaining its current high pricing strategy therefore, a superior
23 | P a g e
Starbucks’ to exploit its brand awareness to create a positive perception and also to exploit its
Tazo brand by advertising it in order to gain more market share in a tea drinking nation.
et al,2008) and demands of customers within the market. Starbucks’ already has an energy
boosting coffee hence, not a suitable choice(Starbucks, 2011). However, Starbucks’ can
since access is clearly a KSF for this industry. The market in Central London is becoming
mature(Keynote, 2010) and saturated with coffee shops, and moreover, competitors are
expanding to other locations, hence Starbuck’s has to exploit core competences in new
locations(Johnson et al., 2008) and not allow competitors to gain first mover advantage in
“Acceptability”
“The Company’s retail goal is to become the leading retailer and brand of coffee in each of
its target markets by selling the finest quality coffee and related products, and by providing
24 | P a g e
As Starbucks’ high pricing strategy requires for it to be in a position to exploit superior
advantages than competitors, it is required for Starbucks’ to become a market leader and
exploit its current resources to create a more valuable Starbucks experience. The statement
provided in the shareholders’ annual report supports this and this strategy is advantageous as
it will increase share prices if consumers believe Starbucks is a superior brand. As this option
is a must for Starbucks’ to secure a superior position, the risk is lower than the return.
and this has always been its goal(Starbucks, 2011), if it had to innovate new products for
accepted by the Shareholders(Grant, 2010). The risk is higher than market penetration but the
return is higher as well, since it allows Starbucks to exploit the increasing demand in UK
market effectively.
Acceptability for Market Development: As stated in the Shareholders’ annual report above,
Starbucks’ wants to become a market leader in each of its target market, in order to become a
market leader in the UK, it is required for Starbucks’ to penetrate new locations in UK. Since
this is a KSF, if it does not expand to other locations in every community, it will be at a
Feasibility:
by advertising, Starbucks’ has to make full use of its financial capability and marketing
capability. As seen in its total assets, Starbucks has high financial capability(Grant, 2010). Its
marketing capability has always been one of its core strength(Starbucks, 2011); hence it is
feasible for Starbucks to advertise to gain marketshare. On the other hand, to increase
25 | P a g e
intangible services, it has to make full use of its financial and innovative capability to provide
however, this requires high financial capability which Starbucks clearly has. It is also
required for Starbucks to utilize its marketing capabilities to market the products effectively
et al., 2008), Since Starbucks’ has had more than 700 outlets in UK (Mintel, 2011)and 17,009
Strategic Method:
The strategic method utilised will be organic development(Johnson et al., 2008) for market
penetration and product development since Starbucks’ has the marketing and innovation
capability and direct involvement may help gain competitive advantage(Johnson et al., 2008).
The benefit of developing its marketing and innovation capability is higher than acquiring
any other firm. However, for fast action to compete with Costa, Starbucks should exploit
contractual strategic alliance(Johnson et al., 2008) such as licensing as it has done in the past
since number of stores and accessibility can directly increase its marketshare.
Conclusion
The main issues that Starbucks face is its loss of market leader position due to lower
26 | P a g e
Its marketing capability and innovation capability are its core competences, however
as seen in the SWOT Matrix, its financial capability requires Strategic Stretch.
Starbucks has the ability to become a market leader but it requires aggressive strategy
by utilising. Though it will face aggressive retaliation from Costa, Whitbread plc’
Recommendation
All strategies provided above to become a market leader in UK must be followed and
Although the industry analysis is produced for 2011, the research information is from
2010, and Starbucks’ have made fast paced decisions and followed most of the
Reflection
The research conducted provided a full understanding of the rationale behind utilising
Porter’s Five Forces before PESTLE, as it helps identify direct environmental factors
impacting the coffee industry and Starbucks specifically. Moreover, the learning map
Overall, the research experience has posed quite a few difficulties as it is a new
27 | P a g e
APPENDIX
APPENDIX 1
Calculation of Marketshare for Competitive Grid. Information from marketshare table
Differentiation, medium pricing: Checked the website for prices and made an assumption of
the differentiation level and their pricing strategy. Starbucks has as high differentiation as
Fast paced innovation: Checked the website and made an assumption. Starbucks has an
extremely vast line of product lines and has fast paced innovation, Costa’s product line is
much shorter.
Financial Capability is higher for Starbucks as it is a global business and Costa is support by
large Whitbread plc. Moreover, Cafe Nero is much smaller than the two.
Brand awareness and Brand Perception: Starbucks scored full in brand awareness but it has
28 | P a g e
APPENDIX 2:
Strength/weakness Increase in Use of Value for Importance Expected Higher Ageing Energy Penetration
working
women with
busier
lifestyles
technology:
Social Media
and Geo-
fencing
money
trend
of future
Localisation growth for
UK market
coffee
prices and
demand
volatility
population drink
popularity
of non-
specialty to
sell coffee + -
Strength 1: Marketing 3 4 5 4 5 0 3 3 4 31 0
capability
Strength 2:High Financial 3 5 4 3 3 -4 0 -3 -2 18 -9
Capability: Total Assets
Strength 3: 4 3 4 2 5 -4 2 2 4 26 -4
Innovation Capability
Strength 4: 2 0 2 5 2 0 2 0 3 16 0
human-resource(culture)
Strength 5: 0 0 3 0 4 3 0 0 0 10 0
Relationship with coffee
suppliers
-2 0 -2 -4 -4 0 -2 0 -3 0 -17
W1: operation (product
recalls)
W2: Starbucks experience: -3 4 -5 -4 -4 0 -4 -3 -4 9 -45
not high value for money.
W3: Negative brand -3 5 -4 -3 -3 0 0 -2 -3 21 -29
perception
W4: Lower market share 3 3 4 3 3 -3 -2 -3 -3 16 -26
than competitor
W5: Taste of product and -2 0 0 -3 -2 -2 0 -2 -4 0 -15
Accessibility of Starbucks
Store
Environmental Impact 15 24 22 17 22 3 7 5 11
Scores -10 0 -11 -14 -13 -13 -8 -13 -19
Marketing capability score: marketing/advertising can add value for all including increase in
working women and busier lifestyles because marketing capability allows advertising to be
specifically targetted at this group. Marketing can also help increase the value of the product.
Financial Assets can be depleted by higher coffee prices and penetration of non-specialty
Innovative capability: can help Starbucks innovate products and advertising can express its
Negative brand perception: can have an effect on future purchase and does not help with
29 | P a g e
Bibliography
1. AAKER, D. A. 2005. Strategic market management, Wiley, c2005
2. BAINES, P., FILL, C. & PAGE, K. 2008. Marketing, Oxford, Oxford University
Press
Management Executive 9.
4. BERNS, M., TOWNSEND, A., KHAYAT, Z., BALAGOPAL, B., REEVES, M.,
http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/1048577/Starbucks-Yahoo-digital-
8. CLARK, A. 2011. Starbucks joins Nike and Apple in the big league of no-name logos
11. DATAMONITOR360 2006. Winning Strategies for Food and Drink Brand Loyalty.
Datamonitor360.
Euromonitor.
Euromonital International.
30 | P a g e
15. GALLAUGHER, J. & RANSBOTHAM, S. 2010. Social Media and Customer Dialog
16. GRANT, R. M. 2010. Contemporary Strategy Analysis: Text & Cases. 7th Ed. 7th ed
19. KEYNOTE 2009. Market Report Plus 2009: Restaurants. October 2009 ed.: Keynote.
20. KEYNOTE 2010a. Market Focus 2010: Top Markets: Food, Catering & Drink
Volume 1. Keynote.
21. KEYNOTE 2010b. Market Focus 2010: Top Markets: Food, Catering & Drink
Volume 2. Keynote.
22. KEYNOTE (ed.) 2010c. Market Forecasts: Food, Catering & Drink.
23. KOTLER, P. 2003. Marketing management, [Upper Saddle River, N.J.] ; [London],
24. LYNCH, R. L. 2006. Corporate strategy, Harlow, Financial Times Prentice Hall.
27. MINTEL 2011c. Starbucks Digital Roll Out. Mintel Oxygen Academic.
http://www.nrs.co.uk/lifestyle.html.
29. PERERA, L. C. J., KERR, B., KIMURA, H. & LIMA, F. G. 2009. CASE STUDY:
ECONOMICS, Volume 9.
31 | P a g e
30. PORTER, M. E. 1979. How competitive forces shape strategy The McKinsey
Quarterly.
33. WOODWARD, J. 2011. Point of View: Why you should 'like' Starbucks. WARC.
Admap.
Available:
http://finance.yahoo.com/charts?s=SBUX#chart1:symbol=sbux;range=5y;indicator=v
olume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined.
32 | P a g e