Starbucks ditches #RaceTogether campaign on its US coffee cups

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Dreadclaw69**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/32013958

Starbucks baristas won't write Race Together on customers' cups any more.
The diversity and racial inequality campaign in America has been ditched after it was criticised as opportunistic and inappropriate.
Starbucks spokesman Jim Olson said the coffee chain's race initiative would carry on without the messages.
The campaign was launched after national protests in the US over several police killings of black men in New York and Ferguson, Missouri.
"While there has been criticism of the initiative - and I know this hasn't been easy for any of you - let me assure you that we didn't expect universal praise," a company memo from CEO Howard Schultz said.
Some customers said they didn't want to talk about race while being served coffee.
The #racetogether hashtag was also hijacked after being promoted on Twitter.

Common helped to launch the campaign at a Starbucks shareholders meeting
"Most people come to Starbucks for coffee," said Ninette Musili, a 19-year-old African-American student at the University of Michigan.
"Race is an uncomfortable thing to bring up, especially in a Starbucks."
Another customer, Shane Mulholland, 46, said Starbucks wasn't the place to talk about race.

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz said the campaign was a "catalyst" for a broader conversation
"They're here for coffee. They're not here to push their political agenda," he said.
"I even contemplated not coming here because of it."
He said Starbucks should remain neutral on topics like race because it's an established brand, rather than risk putting customers off.
"There are other ways you can go about doing things to stimulate interest in what you're doing," said Mulholland.
"They must be doing so well they don't have to worry about losing customers over that."

I typically do not comment in the OPs that I post, but I don't see how any other result could have been expected.

**Frazzled**

I was looking forward to discussing the oppression my four legged cousins face. Oh well.

**Iron_Captain**

I think such campaigns could actually increase, rather than decrease racism because they remind people of racial difference. Maybe the best way to decrease racism is to pretend there aren't any different races at all and pay no attention to it, rather than just say: "Okay you people, now you all get along because racism is bad m'kay?" I don't think such campaigns as this have any positive effect.

**timetowaste85**

I just heard about race together last night. Dumbest idea ever. "I know, let's make it awkward for everyone involved when they get a coffee!"

Mat Ward, are you now the ideas man for Starbucks?

**Hordini**

No good deed goes unpunished.

**Dreadclaw69**

Hordini wrote:
No good deed goes unpunished.

You think your barista wanting to start a conversation about race while you wait for them to brew your coffee is a good idea?

**Ouze**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Hordini wrote:
No good deed goes unpunished.

You think your barista wanting to start a conversation about race while you wait for them to brew your coffee is a good idea?

I think it was a bad idea with good intentions, much as a corporation is capable of having good intentions.

**Frazzled**

I think it was a pr stunt.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
I think it was a bad idea with good intentions, much as a corporation is capable of having good intentions.

What do you believe the good intentions behind this were?

**Sigvatr**

Nothing sets me up more nowdays than the endless amount of ever-rising slacktivism and slactivist attention roars.

**Dreadclaw69**

Sigvatr wrote:
Nothing sets me up more nowdays than the endless amount of ever-rising slacktivism and slactivist attention roars.

Two questions come to mind at this point;
1) How long does it take to brew a Starbucks coffee, and is that long enough for such a complicated issue
2) Can you have a complex social discussion with a group of people famous for their inability to spell even simple names?

**d-usa**

The point wS most likely to create discussion in general, and not discussion with the barista.

Kind of like you posted on DakkaDakka to talk about it instead of posting on CoffeeCoffee.

**Steve steveson**

d-usa wrote:
The point wS most likely to create discussion in general, and not discussion with the barista.

Kind of like you posted on DakkaDakka to talk about it instead of posting on CoffeeCoffee.

Ye, and it seems to have done that.

What amazes me from this is the number of people who seem to think that racism no longer exists or is not an issue.

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
The point wS most likely to create discussion in general, and not discussion with the barista.

Kind of like you posted on DakkaDakka to talk about it instead of posting on CoffeeCoffee.

The difference being that here at Dakka we have a diverse community to discuss matters with different perspectives, with a variety of users spread out across the globe who may join the conversation at their own time. We are not a commercial organization providing a service for profit. Any interaction between people at Starbucks would be fleeting at best.

Is a for profit organization the best vehicle to drive discussion on race?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Steve steveson wrote:
Ye, and it seems to have done that.

Are we currently talking about race, or how bad this PR stunt was?

**AlmightyWalrus**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
The point wS most likely to create discussion in general, and not discussion with the barista.

Kind of like you posted on DakkaDakka to talk about it instead of posting on CoffeeCoffee.

The difference being that here at Dakka we have a diverse community to discuss matters with different perspectives, with a variety of users spread out across the globe who may join the conversation at their own time. We are not a commercial organization providing a service for profit. Any interaction between people at Starbucks would be fleeting at best.

Is a for profit organization the best vehicle to drive discussion on race?

Of course it is, the market solves everything, you pinko-commie!

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
The point wS most likely to create discussion in general, and not discussion with the barista.

Kind of like you posted on DakkaDakka to talk about it instead of posting on CoffeeCoffee.

You're giving them too much credit. It reaks of nothing but a pr stunt as part of a marketing campaign.

**d-usa**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
The point wS most likely to create discussion in general, and not discussion with the barista.

Kind of like you posted on DakkaDakka to talk about it instead of posting on CoffeeCoffee.

The difference being that here at Dakka we have a diverse community to discuss matters with different perspectives, with a variety of users spread out across the globe who may join the conversation at their own time. Any interaction between people at Starbucks would be fleeting at best.

It's almost as if live continues once people leave Starbucks, and people are able to talk about stuff once they walk past the doors.

I assume you are posting this while not sitting at a Starbucks?

Is a for profit organization the best vehicle to drive discussion on race?

Is a for profit organization automatically disqualified from driving a discussion on race?

**Ouze**

d-usa wrote:
Is a for profit organization automatically disqualified from driving a discussion on race?

Are you suggesting we should restrict job creators from doing anything they like?

Serious question, bro.

Why do you hate America so much?

**Sigvatr**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
Nothing sets me up more nowdays than the endless amount of ever-rising slacktivism and slactivist attention roars.

Two questions come to mind at this point;
1) How long does it take to brew a Starbucks coffee, and is that long enough for such a complicated issue
2) Can you have a complex social discussion with a group of people famous for their inability to spell even simple names?

3) Is a Starbucks really the right place to discuss such a matter?

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
It's almost as if live continues once people leave Starbucks, and people are able to talk about stuff once they walk past the doors.

I assume you are posting this while not sitting at a Starbucks?

Not from Starbucks, no.
So who will you carry this conversation on with after you get your coffee? Another patron? The staff? Is the topic that close to the customer's heart that it took a staff member in a coffee shop to scribble on your disposable cup with a sharpie to prompt a discussion? Given the events in Ferguson and elsewhere recently are we under the impression that race is not an issue, and we need someone selling coffee to remind us?

d-usa wrote:
Is a for profit organization automatically disqualified from driving a discussion on race?

I don't recall saying they were disqualified. What I asked was whether they were the best place.

**d-usa**

A gakky place is still a better place than no place.

Is the Dakka OT really the best place for any of us to talk about any of the stuff we talk about?

**CptJake**

They tried it. Based on feedback the CEO decided to stop it. Seems to be exactly the way a for profit company should work.

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
A gakky place is still a better place than no place.

Is the Dakka OT really the best place for any of us to talk about any of the stuff we talk about?

That's not the question though. Is Starbucks the right place for this discussion? What do they bring to the table in resources? What resolution can they bring? What lobbying power do they have?

**d-usa**

What resolution can your thread bring? What resources does it bring to the table? What lobbying power does it have?

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
What resolution can your thread bring? What resources does it bring to the table? What lobbying power does it have?

Remind me when Yakface ran a campaign that had the moderators post hashtag #racetogeather in threads? Comparing the off-topic section of a war gaming site with a coordinated marketing campaign specifically designed to bring up the topic of race is an obvious false equivalence

**Crablezworth**

Next mcdonalds will be encouraging a rousing back and forth on the death of the middle class while you wait for your big mac...

I think it's complicated enough to order a coffee at starbucks without an amorphous conversation about race.

**Jihadin**

Good Idea Fairy on the prowl

**d-usa**

You have yet to make an argument why Starbucks is any less qualified to start a discussion about anything that you are.

**Jihadin**

d-usa wrote:
You have yet to make an argument why Starbucks is any less qualified to start a discussion about anything that you are.

Guess Starbucks sent their employee's to EO/EOA school eh.

**kronk**

When I go to Starbucks, I want coffee.

When I go to WalMart, I want to see people wearing crazy gak.

When I go to a strip club, I want to see hooters.

Don't preach anything to me. Thanks. Here's my money.