Today I am drinking an Iced Caramel Macchiato per Bayley Cook’s suggestion. Here is where I would insert a cool transition from the macchiato to today’s topic, but I came up empty. Besides, today’s topic does not need much introduction. We’re talking about the 2020 Election!
Last Friday, September 6th, was my eighteenth birthday (I am now a registered voter!) so I figured now would be the best time to talk about the political footprint Starbucks has left on our society. Unfortunately, on my birthday, Howard Schultz, the former Starbucks CEO, dropped out of the 2020 Election. Schultz cited that the “risk of reelecting President Trump” was one of his reasons for leaving the race, in an article from Washington Post.
Despite his disinterest in the Trump administration, Schultz is similar to President Trump in that he is not a politician. But Schultz has been more inclusive in his ideals and plans. For example, according to a QSR article, Starbucks planned to employ refugees in 2017 under the jurisdiction of Schultz, which came right on the heels of the refugee crisis in Syria. He claimed that he took issue with American politics. His attempt to spark social change through Starbucks was mirrored in his campaign promises.
But, Starbucks has become the center of multiple controversial news stories through its attempts to be more forward-thinking. For example, the truth behind Starbucks’ inclusivity was called into question through their wintertime red cups.
The image shows that over the years, Starbucks has progressively changed the design of its cups to include less Christmas connotations. In 2015 the cup was just plain red. Schultz, who stepped down from being CEO in 2017, was part of this decision. The lack of a wintertime design created an uproar from the Christian community. A leader in that group, Joshua Feuerstein, said that Starbucks was “caving to political correctness.” But, Starbucks was following the movement of society to be more inclusive of a wider range of religions and holidays. By following cultural trends, Starbucks remained relevant around the world.
Another example of the controversy that follows Starbucks is the Race Together campaign, which began out of tense racial relationships within the company. In response, Schultz remarked on his “concern” for American politics and began the first discussion of him running for president. Though the Race Together campaign did not last long, it was thought to bring about discussions of political correctness again in the company. Again, it kept the company relevant. Starbucks found its niche through social trends and movements. By finding a spot in the company to highlight social issues, Starbucks gained popularity by its relatability to the everyday person’s struggles. Its popularity gives Starbucks the platform to influence the political climate.
It becomes obvious that through Schultz, Starbucks embarked on the journey of social justice. It can be argued that in recent years, many controversial events would go against that claim. But, Starbucks has mastered the art of damage control. And by doing so, the company remains King of the Coffee Industry simply because it knows the topography of the social environment. Whether it be, as the ABC News article states, supporting same-sex marriage, refugees, or racial bias training, Starbucks makes sure to stay up-to-date with the times (and guarantees to publicly announce this, too).
The inference can be made that Schultz ran for president, or at least attempted to because he made his company the brand of the people and he wanted to be the man of the people himself. As an independent, he wouldn’t be tied to party interests, instead, he could fight for the public. Despite dropping out of the race, Schultz’s short-lived run for president did bolster Starbucks’ political footprint. He reminded the American people that Starbucks is here to listen to them. And more than anything, he reminded us that Starbucks is not just a coffee chain, it is a coffee chain with a whole lot of political influence.