...so, Starbucks paid some guerrilla marketing company millions of dollars to stage an absurd publicity stunt.<p>Supporting Facts:<p><pre><code> 1. All publicity is good publicity.
2. All branding is identical, verbatim, (e.g. no
use of small, medium, large; instead branded sizing
parlance is used) forcing the customer to closely
inspect the imitation for flaws. This forces a level of
psychological engagement in the customer that would not
occur in regular, legitimate establishments.
3. Starbucks, for all it's popularity, rarely experiences
negative press. Thus, their brand can easily tolerate
examples of light trolling.
4. Dubious "news" coverage offers vectors for market
penetration into sectors that represent the Lowest
Common Denominator, without cheapening Starbucks'
brand. In other words, they can speak to an audience
that they'd rather not be associated with, without
having to directly engage them. They can inject their
brand's presence into the daily lives of people who
would not ordinarily pay attention to their usual modes
of advertising.
5. Without an entity to claim credit for this activity,
this parody only serves to provide increased exposure
to Starbucks. A well executed parody without an author
will provide no alternate context to the premise of the
joke. If there is any meaning or theme to the parody,
the audience can barely guess at what it should be, if
the intent of the performer cannot be discerned.
6. Hypothesis: The "Dumb" shop will only stay open for as
long as the minor local news publicity lasts. It's
there only to make people use the word "Starbucks" as
frequently as possible, in as many sound bites as
possible, trigger some water cooler conversation for
about a week (word of mouth buzz), and then die.</code></pre>