Starbucks standardization and adaptation strategy

The idea behind standardization is that all the outlets involved should enjoy mutual gains by employing similar tried and tested strategies. For instance, the coffee giant Starbucks in different parts of the world seems to offer a similar setting, products and services due to standardization of their franchise and outlets. Coca-Cola is another entity that employs

Starbucks standardization and adaptation strategy

Writing Implementation The first stage—pre-conceptualization—takes place constantly in the industry. It is the stage where someone has an idea for standardizing something. It is in this stage that the basic decision is made to either share or to keep proprietary but not, as some think, to patent or to copyright.

If the decision is made to share, then the activities that lead to a standardization effort start; if the decision is made to keep proprietary, then a different path is taken.

When discussions begin, all sorts of activities can happen, and usually, most of them result in the idea being abandoned.

The audience can be technologists, politicians, marketers, consultants, or anyone who can help champion the idea. There are quite a few standards organizations available for use. It is in this stage that the concept is ratified to make sure that it is capable of being standardized that is, it fits within the scope and framework of the organization chosenthat it is technically possible as opposed to technically viableand that there are necessary supporters willing to commit resources.

Since someone must actually pay to create standards in some cointhere must be someone willing to foot the bill. Additionally, the organization that is charged with creating the specification must have assurances that there will be something in this for the organization, either in publishing revenues, increased membership, increased dues, or, occasionally, marketing and positioning benefit.

So, if all the conditions are met—that is, the organization can provide a home—then standardization begins and goes into the discussion stage.

In this stage, unless there is a clear and easy problem being solved, the situation slows slightly. It is in this stage that opposition first begins to surface inside of the activity itself never mind the external opposition and comments.

This is where trade-offs occur, where all the deals are done to make positions change and where strengths and weaknesses become either heightened or obscured.

Once the majority of issues are solved—if they are—the activity proceeds to the next stage—actually writing the specification.

In writing a specification, there are two schools of thought, and the decision on which option to pursue should have been decided in the discussion stage. Both have strengths and drawbacks, and both have the ability to fail, but for much different reasons. Once the specification is completed, the most difficult activity begins—the implementation of the specification.

And this is where most people who write about standards—and most standards organizations—fail. Implementation of a specification should occur in a product, service, legislation, or policy or other concrete market-visible offering.

In many cases, the successful implementation of a specification somehow and somewhere can be taken as a victory for the standard—but it, too, is a point of possible discussion. Nearly every standard that encompasses compromise has a loser who considers the effort a failure.

Three of the main requirements are: Not having these will not cause the standard to fail, but they may have a tremendous impact on the legitimacy and acceptance of the specification and the technology contained therein. With this description of several of the attributes that help a standards gestation, we can now turn to look at potential failure modes and what makes a standard fail.

Failure Modes Because there is no clear-cut definition of what makes a standard successful, there are similarly no clear definitions of what makes a standard a failure.

To begin this portion of the paper, then, it will be helpful to catalogue the various ways that a standard can be seen to fail—or conditions that lead to the market calling a standard a failure there is a difference.

Starbucks standardization and adaptation strategy

In this section of failure mode listing, it is necessary to distinguish between the standard and the standardization activity. Major categories of Failure:that investigates the relationship between the role of the strategies of standardization and adaptation of the marketing mix and performance in an international context.

The Influence of Adaptation and Standardization Nov 30,  · Strategy. Technology & Operations. We noted you are experiencing viewing problems. Check with your IT department that JWPlatform, JWPlayer and Amazon AWS & CloudFront are not being blocked by your network.

Adaptation and standardization as business dilemmas;. Sep 29,  · Standardized global marketing is an international marketing strategy that basically uses the same marketing strategy and mix in all of teh company's international markets.

Oct 08,  · One strategy that Starbucks has employed in order to help it succeed abroad is the introduction of “its full range of products in phases, selling coffee and other beverages including tea and juices through retail stores in 25 international countries.” 78 In another 11 countries.

Adaptation Marketing Strategy by Alan Valdez - Updated September 26, Firms often adapt their market strategies when entering foreign markets, even in a global era where many brands and products like cola beverages and fast food outlets are nearly universally prevalent.

Standardization and Customization- A Global Debate Dr. Jyotsna Hirmukhe XMBA Batch 4. Standardization versus adaptation is the extent to which each marketing mix element can be executed in the same or different ways in various country markets. McD, Starbucks, KFC. (It is assumed that public will accept global products).

Communication Adaptation Definition | Marketing Dictionary | MBA