Karl Marx Was Right

Communism's erstwhile propagandist Karl Marx predicted that capitalism’s corporations would tend to merge, agglomerating into ever-bigger monopolies that dominated markets and commoditized experience.

He was right, only not in the ways he expected. 

Just look at McDonald's and Starbucks.  And blame branding, not capitalism.

Both companies seem hellbent on becoming like one another.  Sure, Starbucks started out selling cups of java in stylishly dark bohemian settings, while McDonald's began selling burgers in jarringly bright family settings.  But now they share:

• Menu: You can get a slimy sandwich at Starbucks, and a cup of fancy coffee at McDonald's.  Overall, the menus are similarly detailed and confusing
• Patrons: Hear that screaming baby or inane teenager rant?  You could be in either restaurant, as they seem to attract the same people (or at least share an attraction to families)
• Experience: Both restaurants have counters lined/surrounded by various machines that make noise.  All of the junky impulse chotchkes for sale at Starbucks make it about as visually jarring as a plastic-covered McDonald's
• Service: A line is a line, and a harried employee is not so much fun, whether you call her an associate or a barrista.  There's often a wait involved for your order at either restaurant, yet no accommodation for it.

So, while recent news coverage has focused on how McDonald's plans to employ coffeemakers (machines and people) to compete with Starbucks, I think there’s been a bigger trend underway for far longer:

These companies, like many businesses, seem to think that all it takes to sell the same things to the same people is a unique name, logo, or other invention of branding.

But we know that merely calling a country a 'people's republic' never made it a democracy.  In branding, just like in politics, actions (eventually) speak louder than words.

Perhaps the market for caffeine and junk food is large enough to support both businesses; the real differentiator might simply be location, in that consumers will choose the brand name that's closest to them when they're hungry or thirsty.

At some point, the functions of these businesses really do merge, perhaps not as legally united entities, but certainly in the reality of consumer experience. 

Brand marketing can declare conceptual differences forever, but can't change the fact that both companies operate restaurants that generally look and feel (and taste) like one another.

Changing reality would mean doing things...in reality...like having the guts to target a particular type of consumer (or consuming moment)...maybe skip adding that next menu impulse item, even if it looks so lucrative on a spreadsheet.

But, no.  I bet we're just going to get more brilliant communications.  And McDonald's and Starbucks will more aggressively chase one another's customers and, in doing so, become more and more similar.

Ok, so it's not a monopoly, as Marx warned. 

It's just so damn boring.

Comments

[Scott White]

Starbucks brought this on themselves. But a cup of coffee at McDonalds is not the same as a cup at Starbucks. They market to completely different groups. Starbucks targets the business/creative professional. Not so much families.

Starbucks has killed their brand by trying to be everything to everyone. Now they've drifted into no-brand's land and are quickly becoming a commodity.