Two Major Brands in the News Today

A quick stroll through today's Wall Street Journal reveals two major brands that are under particular scrutiny. (I'm ignoring political and national brands, even though we certainly COULD talk about how the healthcare bill has affected Obama's brand). 

Google - Sergey Brin, the co-founder of the internet giant, said recently about Google's pullback of its Chinese search site: "I think at some point it is appropriate to stand up for your principles, and if more companies, governments, organizations, individuals did that, I do think the world would be a better place."

Is this great corporate branding, or what?  Google is well known for it's Microsoft-bashing motto "Don't be evil".  And his recent actions, refusing to cooperate with China's censorship demands, does support that brand message.  Google's about-face on growth in China, after six years of accepting China's demands, is a bit confusing to some business people in Silicon Valley, but I commend Brin for staying "on brand", even if he will lose revenue to competitors who are more willing to change their search filters to suit the whims of the communist regime. 

Starbucks - The publicly-traded company announced yesterday that it will pay a dividend to stockholders at the end of this fiscal year, for the first time since the IPO 18 years ago.  This comes amidst a two-year slump in sales at the ubiquitous coffee chain.  Although you could argue that this is purely a financial decision that has nothing to do with Starbuck's brand, it has everything to do with the brand's perception and maintaining confidence in Starbuck's continuing domination.  If you haven't been reading the news, some of Starbucks' recent activities include: store closures, putting its coffee in Burger King, selling instant coffee, and engaging in a battle of principle with gun-owners.  Sounds a bit "all over the place" to me, without a clear direction.  So perhaps paying dividends is a way of telling consumer "We know what we're doing, and we're going to be around for a long time." 

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz also put another brand image feather in his cap during the investor meeting, when he quoted a conversation he had with a major investor.  The investor was concerned with the cost-ineffectiveness of paying health benefits for part-time baristas.  Schultz announced to the crowd at the meeting that he flatly refused to take away any benefits from those employees, suggesting the investor choose another target for his investment.  Hearing this, the audience went wild with applause.  Way to go, Schultz.  He's been talking for years about how to make Starbucks back into the "gathering place" he originally intended, as opposed to a commodity place to buy pricey take-out coffee drinks.  And this type of public support for the common employee could help boost morale and improve the quality of service that customers receive.  Next time you pick up a latte, let me know if the person behind the counter seems a little more happy doing his or her job.  And if that changes your perception of the Starbucks brand.