Description
Starbucks Corporation, formed in 1985, is a leading specialty coffee retailer and one of the best known brands todayi. In addition to its sale of high‐quality coffees, Starbucks retail stores also offer Italian‐style espresso beverages, cold blended beverages, complementary food items, coffee‐related accessories and equipment, premium teas, and a line of compact discs.
Strategic Report for
Starbucks Corporation
Harkness Consulting
Innovation through Collaboration
Harry Leshner
Cathryn Camacho
Scott Damassa
April 14, 2007
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ………………………………………………..2
Company History ………………………………….………………..3
Competitive Analysis ………………………………………………5
Internal Rivalry ………………………………………………………… 5
Entry ………………………………………………………………………… 8
Substitutes and Complements ……………………………………… 9
Supplier Power ………………………………………………………… 10
Buyer Power ……………………………………………………………… 11
SWOT Analysis …………………………………………………….…11
Financial Analysis …………………………………………….…….12
Strategic Issues and Recommendations …………….……..17
Appendix ………………………………………………………………20
References………………………………………………………….…23
Harkness Consulting
1
Executive Summary
Starbucks Corporation, formed in 1985, is a leading specialty coffee retailer and one of the best
known brands today
i
. In addition to its sale of high?quality coffees, Starbucks retail stores also
offer Italian?style espresso beverages, cold blended beverages, complementary food items,
coffee?related accessories and equipment, premium teas, and a line of compact discs. Outside of
its company?operated retail stores, Starbucks also sells packaged coffee and tea products, ready?
to?drink beverages including its bottled Frappuccino® beverages and Starbucks DoubleShot®
espresso drinks, ice creams, and other products mainly through licensing relationships. The
company’s brand portfolio includes Tazo® teas, Starbucks Hear Music® compact discs, Seattle’s
Best Coffee®, and Torrefazione Italia® coffee.
Throughout its history, Starbucks has been known for its aggressive store expansion, as it
seemed impossible to open new stores quickly enough to keep up with demand. However,
since its stock falling from about $80 per share near the end of 2006 to its current price of about
$18 per share
ii
, along with a dramatic decline in the growth of its same?store sales last quarter
iii
,
it seems that Starbucks may have run out of growth opportunities. Furthermore, as other
specialty coffee retailers such as Peet’s Coffee and Tea and Caribou Coffee have entered the
market, and as competition from fast food chains such as Dunkin’ Donuts and McDonald’s has
increased, Starbucks has lost market share. Therefore, it may appear that the company is in
decline.
Despite these conditions, Starbucks remains the strongest company in the industry and it has
many opportunities to increase its profits. The major issues facing the company include
maintaining the Starbucks Experience for customers, store expansion and real estate issues,
competition from fast?food chains and other specialty coffee retailers, specialty operations,
generating more demand and penetrating new markets, and lowering input costs. Since the
return of Howard Schultz in January 2008, much has been done that addresses the first three
issues mentioned. The analysis in this report will help reaffirm those initiatives as well as
discover others that address the last three issues and will enhance the company’s performance.
Harkness Consulting
2
Starbucks must seek more licensing relationships that will increase revenues from specialty
operations at little cost, and also expose the brand. Existing retail stores must attract more
customers and increase sales, especially after the morning rush hours, and can do so by
expanding non?coffee beverage options. Finally, the company will drastically reduce its input
costs by abandoning purchases of Fair Trade Certified
TM
coffee, which can be accomplished
without drawing negative attention to the brand.
Company History
Starbucks began as a whole bean coffee seller in Seattle, Washington at Pikes Place in 1971
iv
.
The original location’s name was “Starbucks Coffee, Tea, and Spices,” This caused some
confusion and was later shortened to the “Starbucks Coffee Company.” The name Starbucks
comes from the first mate in the Moby Dick book by Herman Melville. Since its inception, the
company’s goal has been to find the premier coffee in the world and present it to people who
would otherwise not be exposed to it.
In 1982 Starbucks acquired the services of Howard Schultz as the director of retail operations
and marketing and the company began to expand its businesses by providing coffee to fine
restaurants and espresso bars
v
. Starbucks put an emphasis on freshness during this time and
would replace coffee it deemed not to be fresh, and thus unfit for consumption, for free so that
customers received only the best coffee at these restaurants. A major shift in the Starbucks
business plan occurred in 1983 when Schultz traveled to Italy and noticed the popularity of
espresso bars in Milan. This gave him the idea that this would work in the United States, and
Starbucks began testing this concept in 1985, successfully.
In 1985, Schultz founded Il Giornale
vi
, which offered brewed Starbucks products in his Milan
espresso bar replicas. Il Giornale succeeded and in 1987 Schultz secured the backing of local
investors and acquired Starbucks Assets and changed the name to “Starbucks Corporation”.
From 1987 to 1992 Starbucks Corporation grew to 165 locations. This also included a mail order
Harkness Consulting
3
catalog, a new headquarters, airport locations, and deals with several airlines to serve coffee on
board.
On June 26
th
, 1992 Starbucks IPO’d at a price of $17 per share and closed trading on the first day
at $21.50 per share
vii
. SBUX common stock is traded on the Nasdaq exchange. Since then,
Starbucks has been one of the leaders in stock incentive programs involving even its part?time
baristas. Starbucks was one of the first and still the most active companies in granting stock
options to its entry?level employees regardless of salary. This is one of the reasons that
Starbucks has been able to have such a high level of service over the years, because its
employees care about the public perception of the company.
From 1992 to 2000 the Starbucks Corporation continued to grow and flourish by increasing its
store total to an astounding 3,501 stores. During this time the company acquired Tazo® teas &
Hear Music® in 1999, in hopes that people would view Starbucks as a destination, instead of
simply a coffee shop
viii
. Starbucks has continued to acquire companies in order to make the
transformation from simple coffee bar to entertainment destination by offering high speed
internet since 2001, and starting events for local artists and musicians in the recent years.
Throughout the years Starbucks has grown its core business away from just coffee to a
diversified portfolio including many different goods. The company’s current product portfolio
includes
ix
:
• Over 30 blends and single?origin coffees
• Unlimited combinations of brewed coffee and tea products
• Fresh foods; which includes pastries, sandwiches & salads
• Music, books, and film
• Packaged drinks and Starbucks liqueurs
• The Starbucks Card ($2.5 Billion in activations and reloads since 2001)
Harkness Consulting
4
In addition to its extensive product offerings, the Starbucks Corporation has many brands
which it cultivates including; Starbucks Entertainment, Starbucks Hear Music®, Tazo® Tea,
Ethos Water, Seattle’s Best Coffee®, and Torrefazione Italia® coffee. The successful
management of all of these brands pulled together represents the Starbucks portfolio in most
Starbucks locations.
Aside from products and brands, Starbucks is one of the most globally conscious corporations
in America. In 2006 Starbucks donated $36.1 million in cash and products, volunteered 383,000
hours in local communities, required growers to use strict environmental guidelines, used 20%
renewable energy in stores, and actively recycled in almost 80% of stores in US and Canada
x
.
Starbucks has established itself as the coffee leader in the world and has done so on a socially
and environmentally conscious platform. Throughout the years, the company has been the
industry leader in promoting conservation in its actions and its preaching to the rest of the
world. During this time, the company has surpassed all competition in this market because of
its quality products and its focus on service. Starbucks has created a system of business where
even the lowest paid employee is still encouraged to take pride in the company for which he
works because it is tied to his compensation, which has helped to infiltrate the mission
statement of Starbucks into all levels of employees.
Competitive Analysis
Porter’s Five Forces Summary for Starbucks
Acting Force Level of Threat to Profits
Internal Rivalry Mid
Entry Low?mid
Substitutes and Complements Mid
Supplier Power Low
Buyer Power Low
Internal Rivalry
As the specialty beverage industry only grows more competitive, Starbucks’ dominant
positioning with a large market share is continuously under pressure. Since its inception,
Harkness Consulting
5
Starbucks has stimulated the overall market, creating a positive spillover effect that increased
the demand for quality coffee beverages. Therefore, even though Starbucks has rapidly
expanded, so have local coffeehouses and ‘mom?and?pop’ stores. Thus, elasticity has increased
with the variety of substitutes available to consumers offering the same product: premium
coffee, friendly staff, and a comfortable milieu. For this reason, recent trends indicate industry
stagnation within the domestic market as coffeehouses are now ubiquitous. Though the trend
has peaked domestically, coffee and coffeehouses are still ingrained in the American culture
leaving this market profitable.
Fragmented rivalry is due to the nature of the industry, which is split between national,
regional, and local competitors domestically and abroad. Within the U.S., key national
competitors include Dunkin’ Donuts, McDonalds, and other fast food chains sprucing up and
diversifying their beverage menu. However, the targeted customer base differs as Starbucks
caters to high?end customers with its gourmet drinks. Nonetheless, the Starbucks Corporation
must be conscious of its price point, so as not to exclude too many potential patrons. Regionally,
the industry may be divided as follows among top rivals:
West coast: Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf and Peet’s Coffee and Tea
Midwest: Caribou Coffee and Panera
East coast: Tim Hortons
These companies are better direct competitors to Starbucks than the national fast food chains as
they appeal to the same consumer base and offer similar product selections. Caribou Coffee is
the second largest corporation within the domestic specialty beverage industry. However, as of
September 30, 2007 Starbucks operated 6,793 stores domestically and 1,712 stores internationally
while Caribou Coffee operated 447 stores domestically and 17 internationally
xi
. Lastly, local
competitors such as site?specific proprietorships and ‘mom?and?pop’ coffeehouses vie with
Starbucks as well. While they are not threats to general empire Starbucks has created, they do
reduce profit margins as they appeal to many coffee drinkers with their more personal
character. These smaller proprietorships are Starbucks’ greatest competitor abroad, which is
Harkness Consulting
6
why recent expansion plans have focused on capturing international markets. Clearly, there are
a large number of rivals within the specialty beverage industry creating a rather competitive
landscape.
Customers do not incur a monetary switching cost in the specialty beverage industry;
nonetheless, an emotional attachment to image and reputation keep them loyal to certain brand
names. Even though only a superficial difference exists between coffeehouses, firms
differentiate their products to capture customers from rival brands. The Starbucks name has
acquired a significant status and has ranked as one of the most influential brand names in the
American culture. With its well?trained baristas, comfortable atmosphere, and quick service,
Starbucks has incorporated important characteristics appealing to customers. In the Starbucks
business model, customers are more important than product. However, even though Starbucks
is able to sell its goods at a higher price point, it must be conscious of the elastic market. For
example, after increases in dairy costs –an input good every coffeehouse model– Starbucks
stores felt the need to announce the reason for price increases so as not to shock customers. The
company informed its customers of the pricing discrepancy because it did not want to lose their
future patronage due to the economic circumstances at the time. This example illustrates the
point that even though Starbucks has brand name loyalty, the company is still susceptible to the
elastic nature of the market.
Starbucks is able to remain competitive within the market due to its sheer size and business
model. As Starbucks takes advantage of economies of scale and scope, it follows a different cost
structure than other corporations in the market. First, Starbucks pays less for the products it is
able to buy in bulk such as dairy goods, syrups, paper goods, etc
xii
. For this reason, the
company reaps higher margins with its specialty drinks, which also help differentiate itself from
other coffeehouses. As customers know they can customize their drinks and the quality of the
drink is guaranteed based upon reputation, Starbucks is always in their evoke set. Next, as no
cooperative pricing exists in this industry, Starbucks prices its drinks based upon the elasticity
of its target customer. Appealing to conspicuous consumption, Starbucks prices are higher than
Harkness Consulting
7
its competitors, lending toward its high trend status. Last, Starbucks is able to differentiate
itself due to its commitment to reduce its environmental impact. Again, its size enables the
company to seek, incorporate and market these environmentally friendly endeavors. For
example, the company replaced cups and cup sleeves with ones that used post?consumer
recycled materials
xiii
. Also, Starbucks adheres to purchasing guidelines, The Commitment to
Origins, which promote economic transparency in not only buying the best coffee, but also at
premium prices to help farmers. These practices further differentiate Starbucks from many of
its competitors.
Barriers to Entry
Within the specialty beverage industry, independent ‘mom?and?pop’ coffeehouses are able to
compete against the larger brands like Starbucks and McDonalds, though on a localized level,
because coffee is coffee. As the main input goods are relatively the same for existing and new
companies, there are no true barriers to entry. Startup costs are not limiting due to the fact that
unit costs do not fall over time within the experience curve, stores do not require a large
amount of floor space, and the industry lacks the use technology, which is normally a huge
initial cost. Thus, identifying an untapped convenient location or niche positioning with a
select consumer base lures companies or individuals to establish their own coffeehouse. Such
easy entrance into the market indicates that on a long?term horizon, profit margins will
decrease within the industry.
However, there are several factors to consider before entering the market of specialty beverages.
First is a general concern all entrepreneurs face: the rule of thumb states that roughly two?thirds
of small businesses fail in the first three years. Next, one must consider the post?entry
conditions and how to compete against Starbucks. Once a startup differentiates itself and
establishes its consumer base, it must continue to fight against the reliability of Starbucks’
quality and the Starbucks experience. Thus, a large amount of startup money must be spent on
advertising to gain market share. Additionally, it is harder for those stores to grow and develop
under the Starbucks shadow. The size and power of Starbucks allow the company to control
Harkness Consulting
8
brand recognition, prime real estate locations, raw material discounts, and so on. Moreover, the
controversial use of predatory practices that Starbucks may or may not utilize also plays a role:
store location, exclusive leasing agreements, market saturation, and other efforts to stifle the
emergence of rivals into the market.
Nonetheless, Starbucks has also felt the pressures of competition and has had to adapt. For
instance, the company is currently revamping its coffee line to offer smaller, cheaper cups
xiv
while using new machines that create one cup of coffee individually so that the taste is fresher
xv
.
This act can be seen as another way Starbucks is modernizing in order to maintain its massive
market share, and repress others from contemplating entry.
Threat of Substitutes and Complements
Starbucks only holds roughly 10% of the domestic coffee consumption
xvi
, therefore product?for?
product substitution as well as generic substitution are important to analyze. There is a large
variety of beverages available ranging from energy drinks or soda pop to juice or water. If one
considers the social aspect of coffee, alcoholic beverages may also be taken into concern.
However, Starbucks sells a large selection of these beverages within its stores. While the
majority of coffee drinkers do not substitute away from coffee or coffee related beverages such
as espresso or blended drinks, the most direct substitute is tea, which Starbucks sells under its
own Tazo® Tea brand. Due to current economic conditions and consequently a change in the
competitive landscape, Starbucks must be weary of at home production, especially as premium
coffeemakers are being built to make single serving cups at a fraction of the cost. Again,
Starbucks has covered this segment as it offers Starbucks branded coffee at various grocery
store locations and warehouse club stores. Thus, the company has done a good job hedging
against the threat of substitutes with the variety of beverages it offers.
The threat of customers substituting away from Starbucks for direct competitors such as Peet’s
Coffee and Tea or Caribou Coffee is a genuine concern. As they all pride themselves on
customer service, specialty drinks, and milieu, they are truly hard to differentiate. On the other
Harkness Consulting
9
hand, competitors such as McDonalds or Dunkin’ Donuts have a negative connotation of being
‘cheap’, which does not appeal to Starbucks’ targeted customer base. Therefore, this
demographic will tend not to substitute away from the high stature brand names.
Within its store locations, Starbucks offers food selections to complement beverage purchases.
For instance, the menu consists of pastries, confections, and pre?made foods such as salads and
sandwiches. When a trial to introduce warm breakfast food provided less than desired results,
the company decided to focus more on its core: fresher and tastier baked goods. Starbucks truly
does not need to concern itself with diversifying its food selection as its current selection
encompasses enough to accompany a coffee drink and satisfy customers. In addition to edible
complements, Starbucks also retails coffee related complements such as mugs, coffeemakers,
and other merchandise. However, such complements do not boost the demand for specialty
beverages enough to be a considerable factor.
Supplier Power
As noted, Starbucks is able to take advantage of its size and benefit from economies of scale.
Though it is able to purchase its input goods from relatively any supplier, the company paid
23% more than the market price for all of its coffee in fiscal 2005
xvii
. This was done in an effort
to abide by its Commitment to Origins in purchasing Fair Trade Certified
TM
coffee. Regardless
of the power Starbucks possesses due to the volume of goods demanded, suppliers are rather
limited because of the conditions within their own markets. As the input markets – comprised
of coffee bean plantations, dairy farmers, and the like – sell commodities, price is determined by
supply and demand. Therefore, due to the high competitiveness of the market, substitutes are
available if Starbucks desires to buy at a different price point. Additionally, suppliers cannot
forwardly integrate due to their remote locations and lack of retail capabilities. Basically,
Starbucks holds all the power in the relationships is has with its suppliers.
Harkness Consulting
10
Buyer Power
Starbucks decides the price at which it sells its drinks based upon the price elasticity of its
consumers and the current prices at rival stores. As the company offers a vertically
differentiated product where the status of higher quality is based upon perception, it is able to
sell at a higher price point. Thus, prices are non?negotiable as the customers have no bargaining
power with Starbucks. Even though patrons may buy from other coffeehouses or purchase
different beverages, due to the high availability of substitutes, Starbucks reacts more to product
competition than individual consumer demands to maintain market leadership.
SWOT Analysis
Strengths
• Brand recognition and consumer loyalty
• Diverse product portfolio catering to all tastes and ages, including non?coffee beverages
and food items
• Excellent customer service and the value of the Starbucks experience
• Licensing relationships with top?brands such as Pepsi?Cola and Kraft that minimize
costs and leverage the strategic advantages of those companies
xviii
• Strong employee relationships
• Economies of scale providing superior distribution networks and supplier power
• Primly?located retail stores
• Positive image attributed to social responsibility
Weaknesses
• Pay 23% more for coffee than market prices
• Saturation of the market diminishes long?term growth prospects
• No monetary switching costs for consumers
• Negative large corporation image
• Potential limitations of international expansion due to cultural clashes with American
coffee experiences
Harkness Consulting
11
Opportunities
• Have the ability to reduce premiums paid for coffee
• Room for international expansion (78% of revenues came from the United States in fiscal
2007 and international same?store sales growth is strong)
xix
• Room to compete on multiple fronts including quality and price
• Increase licensing relationships to further utilize brand strength to capture profits at
little cost to the company
Threats
• Increasing coffee and dairy prices
• Intense competition in the specialty coffee beverage business
• Unfavorable economic conditions that lower the demand for expensive beverages
• Community resistance to store expansion
• The possibility that the demand for specialty coffee is a fad
• Diverging from the Starbucks experience
• Further diversification of fast food restaurants that cuts into market share
Financial Analysis
Perhaps the largest financial problem to which Starbucks owes its declining stock price is the
slowdown in its same?store sales, which have experienced diminished growth for some time
Harkness Consulting
12
Harkness Consulting
13
and grew only 1% in Q1 of 2008
xx
. This leads one to question whether the company’s
aggressive store expansion has led to cannibalization. Company?operated retail stores ha
nearly doubled since 2003, with an increase of about 3,000 domestic stores
ve
rapid
xxi
. During such
expansion, revenue growth rates can only be maintained if transactions are higher at the new
locations than the amount that was lost from existing stores, costs such as rent are lower at the
new stores, or if the new stores relieve capacity pressures at the existing high volume locations.
An ideal scenario would be the opening of a new store in a less visible location, meaning it has
lower rent costs, which attracts many customers away from high volume stores, thereby freeing
up service capacity at the premium locations, which will attract new customers
xxii
. If such
opportunities are scarce, then the company must consider limiting its expansion. While these
opportunities may be waning in the United States, the international data is encouraging.
Domestic company?operated retail revenues grew by almost 20% between 2006 and 2007. This
growth is substantial, however, international company?operated retail revenues grew by more
than 30%
xxiii
. In fact, international same?store sales growth has been quite strong
xxiv
.
An equally large concern due to the declining same?store sales growth is whether the recent
turmoil of the United States economy has made it difficult for consumers to justify paying $4 or
more for a cup of coffee in the morning. Furthermore, increasing coffee prices inhibit the
performance of the entire industry. A closer look at the financial statements of Starbucks, and a
comparison to one of its competitors, will shed some light on these problems and help identify
some of the strengths and weaknesses of the company.
The following analysis compares the financial performance of Starbucks to Peet’s Coffee and
Tea
xxv
. Dunkin’ Donuts may have also been a comparison, since it is believed that recent
developments in the economy may be causing SBUX to lose customers to DD, but financial
information is not available as it is not a publicly traded firm. Nevertheless, PEET is similar to
SBUX in many ways and is in many of the same markets. The most concerning information on
its income statement shows that the cost of goods sold of Starbucks is outpacing its sales
revenues. Although the two year compound annual growth rate of the company’s sales
revenues is 21.56%, its COGS grew by 23.90% in the same time period (2005?2007). This is
troubling further because this may be an industry?wide phenomenon and therefore, little may
be done to overcome this problem. The fact that Peet’s COGS grew by 21.02% versus a growth
of 19.31% in sales revenues over this time period suggests that increasing coffee prices are
hurting the industry as a whole. However, the good news is that Starbucks maintains a higher
growth rate in gross profits than Peet’s (19.91% vs. 17.83% in 2007), although these figures have
declined from 25.39% and 20.62%, respectively, in 2005. The figure below shows the trend in
gross profits as a percentage of sales revenues for both companies.
Vertical Common Size Gross Profits
48.0%
50.0%
52.0%
54.0%
56.0%
58.0%
60.0%
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Date
Gross profit (% of Sales)
SBUX
PEET
Starbucks also looks rather healthy compared to Peet’s in that it has a positive, although
declining, growth rate in net income in recent years while Peet’s has actually experienced
negative growth rates in net income.
Harkness Consulting
14
Including the balance sheet in this analysis, there is almost no difference between the
companies’ net cash conversion cycles. In fact, Starbucks has a very healthy downward trend in
the cycle. This means that over the past few years, Starbucks has been able to reduce the time
between the day it pays its suppliers and the day it turns that investment into cash. Therefore,
it has reduced the time it needs to tie up its capital in the business process, which is better for its
bottom line.
Starbucks Corporation Peet?s Coffee & Tea
Financial Ratios 9/30/2007 10/1/2006 10/2/2005 2007 2006 2005
AR Turn 36.75 37.52 33.39 32.98 35.11 34.01
Days AR 10 10 11 11 10 11
AP Turn 11 11 12 11 10 9
Days AP 33 32 31 33 36 39
Inv Turn 6 5 5 5 5 5
Day Inv 61 68 77 68 67 77
Net Cash
Conversion Cycle 37 45 57
46
42
49
ROE 29.81% 26.93% 23.65% 6.10% 6.15% 8.49%
Growth in Book
Value 104.53% 107.73%
Although the cash conversion cycle displays a healthy trend, the most dramatic difference
between these companies is their returns on equity. Compare the ROE of Starbucks of 29.81%
in 2007 versus 6.10% for Peet’s. This means that Starbucks is much better at generating profits
with the money invested by shareholders.
Although most this news thus far, with the exception of the growth rate of its COGS, at least as
compared to its competitor has been rather positive, the stock price of Starbucks has been
declining, for the most part, since October 2006. On October 6, 2006, SBUX traded for $38.41 per
share, compared to March 2008, where it has fluctuated between $17 and $18 per share. In the
past year, SBUX has underperformed the S&P 500, as evidenced by the graph below
xxvi
.
Harkness Consulting
15
SBUX has also underperformed PEET in the last year, which is especially surprising in light of
the previous analysis. This news does not necessarily mean SBUX is undervalued, but it also
may indicate that PEET is overvalued.
Despite rising coffee prices and economic downturn, Starbucks’ problems are rooted in
declining same?store sales, which may have other contributors such as cannibalization from
aggressive store expansion. Furthermore, although it is true that coffee prices are on the rise, it
is also true that Starbucks pays a premium for Fair Trade Certified
TM
coffee. In fact, in 2005,
Starbucks paid on average 23 percent more for its coffee than market prices. If management
decides this is an issue with which the company is ready to deal, Harkness associates will
Harkness Consulting
16
perform a more rigorous analysis that compares the gross margins of the company’s operations
including purchases of the Fair Trade coffee to those expected gross margins where the
company pays market prices for all coffee.
Strategic Issues and Recommendations
Since the return of Howard Schultz as the company CEO, Starbucks has made many changes to
its retail stores. Schultz believed that many of the company’s struggles came out of its
diverging from what customers expected out of the Starbucks experience. Changes included
plans to phase out hot breakfast items that took away from the coffee smell in stores, lower
machines that allow customers to see their drink being made, and giving baristas more control
over each individual drink. The company has also decided to experiment with a $1 refillable
cup of coffee in order to take market share away from competitors like McDonald’s and
Dunkin’ Donuts, whose customers have more price elastic demand. Also to deal with the real
estate effects on declining same?store sales, the company decided to cut back domestic store
expansion, while focusing on international store expansion to keep up with demand abroad.
While many of these initiatives are steps in the right direction, there are other strategic issues
that the company has yet to address.
Many critics of Starbucks claim that the company has spread itself too thin in recent years by
selling products like chocolate and ice cream that haven’t performed that well and hurt the
company’s bottom line. It should first be noted that these specialty operations, which include
all operations outside of company?operated retail such as the packaged coffee and tea which is
sold in the grocery store, bottled ready?to?drink beverages, chocolate, ice cream, coffee liqueur,
and its entertainment business, constitute only 15% of the company’s business
xxvii
. Furthermore,
most of these operations are conducted through licensing relationships with other companies.
For example, the packaged coffee and tea products available in grocery stores are sold through
a licensing relationship with Kraft Foods. Kraft manages all distribution, marketing,
advertising and promotion of theses products. Starbucks sells its ready?to?drink beverages such
as the bottled Frappuccino® beverages and DoubleShot® espresso drinks through a joint
Harkness Consulting
17
venture with Pepsi?Cola. Additionally, Dreyer’s sells the Starbucks ice cream and Hershey sells
its chocolate.
Thus, since these specialty operations are such a small portion of the business and since they
require little capital investment, it is clear that Starbucks does not have much to lose by
maintaining these relationships. In many cases, the company is just selling its brand name and
collecting royalties. In others, such as the joint venture with Pepsi?Cola, Starbucks is leveraging
the strategic advantages of its partner in the soft drink industry to sell products in a market in
which it might otherwise not be able to compete. Therefore, not only does Starbucks have the
advantage of incurring few costs in these relationships, but it also stands to gain significant
revenues from their operations. Additionally, these licensing relationships put the Starbucks
name further into the public eye, which helps marketing and increases brand recognition. For
these reasons, the Harkness Consulting team recommends that the company further seek such
licensing relationships. It is preferred that the Starbucks looks for those that require as little
capital as possible invested on its own part, such as those that simply license the brand name
and allow the company to collect royalties at no cost, unless it is believed that substantial
returns will be gained from a joint venture. Furthermore, Starbucks should only seek licensing
relationships in adjacent markets, or those that go along with the Starbucks experience, to
prevent negative brand image. For example, the consulting team is confident that management
will not pursue a licensing relationship to create a Starbucks hamburger.
While attention to detail is important, further recommendations will focus on the company?
operated retail segment, since it constitutes 85% of the business. Furthermore, 75% of retail
sales come from coffee
xxviii
. As noted in the financial analysis section of this report, one of the
largest problems on the company’s financial statements is that its COGS are increasing faster
than its sales revenues. If Starbucks could find a way to lower its input costs, then the company
would be in a much healthier financial position and would have much more flexibility in
dealing with its competitors. Fortunately, Starbucks is in such a position. In fiscal 2005,
although only a small fraction of the coffee the company purchases is Fair Trade Certified
TM
,
Harkness Consulting
18
those purchases caused Starbucks to pay 23% more on average for all of its coffee than market
prices. The consulting team recognizes that the Fair Trade certification puts a positive mark on
the already scrutinized brand image of the company. However, current research shows that
Fair Trade practices do not have a positive impact on coffee farming communities in third
world countries
xxix
. Therefore, the consulting team recommends that the company discontinue
its purchases of Fair Trade Certified
TM
coffee, along with a PR campaign that divulges the facts
about Fair Trade practices and Starbucks’ commitment to world justice. The company may
even decide to start a program or charity such as one that builds schools or hospitals in coffee
farming communities. The main point is that discontinuing purchases of Fair Trade Certified
TM
coffee will dramatically lower the company’s input prices, and that this can be done without
tarnishing the company’s corporate image.
Not only will paying less for coffee directly increase the company’s profits, but it will also give
Starbucks more room to compete with other companies on prices. Although Starbucks claims
that it strives to compete on quality, due to recent economic conditions, many consumers have
been turned on to buying cheap coffee at McDonald’s and Dunkin’ Donuts, and lowering prices
may have a dramatic impact on sales. Therefore, the team recommends that Starbucks lower its
prices on coffee in stores, while maintaining current price levels on add?ins and other products,
since it is believed that consumers are most price?elastic in their demand for coffee, but the
customers who add four pumps of flavored syrup will pay about anything to do so.
Another area in which the retail segment of Starbucks should focus is its offerings of non?coffee
beverage options. Although Starbucks is a coffee retailer, many customers are drawn to the
Starbucks experience without actually liking coffee. Therefore, expanding these non?coffee
beverage options and increasing their promotion will allow the company to serve a larger
market. Furthermore, while a large portion of a store’s business is concentrated in the morning
hours before customers go to work, there are substantial growth opportunities in increasing
business in the later hours of the day. This strategy will increase sales during the late mornings
and early afternoons, when parents taking care of their kids during the day and adolescents
Harkness Consulting
19
hanging out after school are likely to frequent a Starbucks location. These small children and
students don’t like coffee but will drink the juices offered in stores. The company should pay
special attention to its line of Frappuccino® Blended Crèmes. Since the stores make these items
themselves, they allow for customization, which produces higher profit margins. Also there are
no close substitutes for these products and they provide these younger customers a good
transition to the coffee offerings
xxx
.
Appendix
Starbucks Income Statement Tables
Vertical Common Size 9/30/2007 10/1/2006 10/2/2005 10/3/2004 9/28/2003
Sales revenues 20.9% 22.3% 20.3% 29.9%
Cost of goods sold 42.5% 40.8% 40.9% 41.4% 41.3%
Gross profit 57.5% 59.2% 59.1% 58.6% 58.7%
Selling, general and administrative expenses 39.4% 40.7% 39.7% 39.6% 39.9%
Depreciation and amortization expenses 5.0% 5.0% 5.3% 5.5% 6.0%
Other operating expenses 3.1% 3.3% 3.0% 3.2% 3.5%
Total operating expenses 47.5% 48.9% 48.0% 48.3% 49.3%
Operating income 10.1% 10.3% 11.1% 10.3% 9.4%
Other gains and losses 1.2% 1.4% 1.5% 1.4% 1.2%
Pretax income 11.2% 11.6% 12.5% 11.7% 10.6%
Tax expense 4.1% 4.2% 4.7% 4.4% 4.1%
Income before extraordinary items 7.1% 7.5% 7.8% 7.3% 6.5%
Extraordinary items or accounting change 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Net income 7.1% 7.5% 7.8% 7.3% 6.5%
Compound Annual Growth Rate 9/30/2007 10/1/2006 10/2/2005
Sales revenues 21.56% 21.28% 25.01%
Cost of goods sold 23.90% 20.44% 24.47%
Gross profit 19.91% 21.87% 25.39%
Selling, general and administrative expenses 21.08% 22.97% 24.75%
Depreciation and amortization expenses 17.19% 15.71% 17.91%
Other operating expenses 23.60% 21.58% 16.71%
Total operating expenses 20.81% 22.08% 23.39%
Operating income 15.93% 20.88% 35.40%
Other gains and losses 9.27% 20.53% 38.05%
Pretax income 15.17% 20.84% 35.70%
Tax expense 12.73% 18.38% 34.42%
Income before extraordinary items 16.64% 22.28% 36.49%
Extraordinary items or accounting change
Net income 16.64% 22.28% 36.49%
Harkness Consulting
20
Peet’s Coffee and Tea Income Statement Tables
Vertical Common Size 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003
Sales revenues 18.5% 20.1% 20.3% 21.6%
Cost of goods sold 47.5% 47.0% 46.1% 46.5% 45.9%
Gross profit 52.5% 53.0% 53.9% 53.5% 54.1%
Selling, general and administrative expenses 43.5% 44.1% 40.7% 40.6% 43.8%
Depreciation and amortization expenses 4.4% 4.1% 4.2% 4.0% 4.1%
Other operating expenses 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total operating expenses 47.9% 48.2% 44.8% 44.5% 47.9%
Operating income 4.7% 4.8% 9.0% 8.9% 6.3%
Other gains and losses 0.6% 1.2% 1.0% 0.6% 1.0%
Pretax income 5.2% 5.9% 10.1% 9.6% 7.2%
Tax expense 1.9% 2.2% 3.9% 3.6% 2.9%
Income before extraordinary items 3.4% 3.7% 6.2% 6.0% 4.3%
Extraordinary items or accounting change 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Net income 3.4% 3.7% 6.2% 6.0% 4.3%
Compound Annual Growth Rate 2007 2006 2005
Sales revenues 19.31% 20.20% 20.92%
Cost of goods sold 21.02% 20.79% 21.28%
Gross profit 17.83% 19.69% 20.62%
Selling, general and administrative expenses 23.42% 25.40% 16.51%
Depreciation and amortization expenses 22.32% 21.97% 22.12%
Other operating expenses
Total operating expenses 23.32% 25.09% 17.00%
Operating income ?14.42% ?12.10% 45.40%
Other gains and losses ?9.59% 63.21% 23.33%
Pretax income ?13.93% ?5.24% 42.64%
Tax expense ?17.34% ?5.19% 40.20%
Income before extraordinary items ?11.83% ?5.27% 44.25%
Extraordinary items or accounting change
Net income ?11.83% ?5.27% 44.25%
Starbucks Balance Sheet Tables
Vertical Common Size 9/30/2007 10/1/2006 10/2/2005
Cash 5.3% 7.1% 4.9%
Short?term Investments 2.9% 3.2% 3.8%
Accounts receivable 5.4% 5.1% 5.4%
Inventory 12.9% 14.4% 15.5%
Other current assets 2.8% 2.9% 2.7%
Total current assets 31.7% 34.5% 34.4%
Property, plant and equipment 54.1% 51.7% 52.4%
Investments 5.2% 5.1% 7.4%
Other assets 4.1% 4.2% 2.1%
Harkness Consulting
21
Accounts Payable 7.3% 7.7% 6.3%
Accrued Liabilities 14.2% 14.9% 15.7%
Total current liabilities 40.3% 43.7% 34.9%
Long?term debt 10.3% 0.0% 0.1%
Warranty payable 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other liabilities 6.6% 5.9% 5.5%
Total liabilities 57.3% 49.7% 40.5%
Preferred stock 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Common stock 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Treasury stock 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Retained earnings 41.0% 48.6% 55.2%
Other comprehensive income 1.0% 0.8% 0.6%
Other equity adjustments 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total shareholders? equity 42.7% 50.3% 59.5%
Peet’s Coffee and Tea Balance Sheet Tables
Vertical Common Size 2007 2006 2005
Cash 8.6% 5.0% 13.9%
Short?term Investments 4.5% 12.8% 21.8%
Accounts receivable 4.7% 4.5% 3.5%
Inventory 13.8% 12.8% 11.4%
Other current assets 2.4% 2.5% 2.3%
Total current assets 35.6% 38.8% 53.9%
Property, plant and equipment 55.9% 53.9% 31.1%
Investments 4.4% 3.9% 11.4%
Other assets 4.1% 3.4% 3.7%
Accounts Payable 5.7% 7.2% 5.7%
Accrued Liabilities 5.0% 4.2% 3.7%
Total current liabilities 14.0% 14.4% 11.8%
Long?term debt 0.0% 0.0% 1.2%
Warranty payable 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other liabilities 3.1% 2.3% 1.7%
Total liabilities 17.1% 16.7% 14.7%
Preferred stock 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Common stock 58.9% 60.9% 67.6%
Treasury stock 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Retained earnings 24.0% 22.4% 17.7%
Other comprehensive income 0.0% 0.0% ?0.1%
Other equity adjustments 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total shareholders? equity 82.9% 83.3% 85.3%
Harkness Consulting
22
Harkness Consulting
23
i
Starbucks 10-K 2007
ii
finance.google.com: SBUX
iii
Financial Alchemist, “Starbuck’s Traffic Decline Due to Cannibalization,” http://financial-
alchemist.blogspot.com/2008/02/starbucks-traffic-decline-due-to.html
iv
www.starbucks.com: Company factsheet
v
www.starbucks.com: Company timeline
vi
www.starbucks.com: Company timeline
vii
www.starbucks.com: Company factsheet
viii
www.starbucks.com: Company timeline
ix
Starbucks 10-K 2007
x
www.starbucks.com: Company factsheet
xi
Starbucks and Caribou Coffee 10-K 2007
xii
Starbucks 10-K
xiii
www.starbucks.com: Company factsheet
xiv
The Boston Globe, “Starbucks testing sales of 8-oz. cup of coffee for $1,”
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/01/24/starbucks_testing_sales_of_8_oz_cup_of_coffee_for_1/
xv
The New York Times, “Starbucks Plans to Return to Its Roots,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/business/20sbux.html?scp=3&sq=starbucks&st=nyt
xvi
Morningstar Analyst Report by J ohn Owens
xvii
www.starbucks.com: Fair Trade and Coffee Social Responsibility
xviii
Starbucks 10-K 2007
xix
Starbucks 10-K 2007
xx
Graph from www.wikinvest.com: SBUX
xxi
Starbucks 10-K 2007
xxii
Financial Alchemist, “Starbuck’s Traffic Decline Due to Cannibalization,” http://financial-
alchemist.blogspot.com/2008/02/starbucks-traffic-decline-due-to.html
xxiii
Starbucks 10-K 2007
xxiv
Graph from www.wikinvest.com: SBUX
xxv
The following statistics are compiled from the financial statements listed in the company’s 10-K (2005-07)
xxvi
Stock charts from finance.google.com
xxvii
Starbucks 10-K 2007
xxviii
Starbucks 10-K 2007
xxix
Alan Boise lecture, Senior Seminar 2008
xxx
In addition to the aforementioned references, the following book was instrumental for this analysis:
Michelli, J oseph. The Starbucks Experience: 5 Principles for Turning the Ordinary into Extraordinary. McGraw-
Hill, New York, NY: 2006.
doc_437870421.pdf
Starbucks Corporation, formed in 1985, is a leading specialty coffee retailer and one of the best known brands todayi. In addition to its sale of high‐quality coffees, Starbucks retail stores also offer Italian‐style espresso beverages, cold blended beverages, complementary food items, coffee‐related accessories and equipment, premium teas, and a line of compact discs.
Strategic Report for
Starbucks Corporation
Harkness Consulting
Innovation through Collaboration
Harry Leshner
Cathryn Camacho
Scott Damassa
April 14, 2007
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ………………………………………………..2
Company History ………………………………….………………..3
Competitive Analysis ………………………………………………5
Internal Rivalry ………………………………………………………… 5
Entry ………………………………………………………………………… 8
Substitutes and Complements ……………………………………… 9
Supplier Power ………………………………………………………… 10
Buyer Power ……………………………………………………………… 11
SWOT Analysis …………………………………………………….…11
Financial Analysis …………………………………………….…….12
Strategic Issues and Recommendations …………….……..17
Appendix ………………………………………………………………20
References………………………………………………………….…23
Harkness Consulting
1
Executive Summary
Starbucks Corporation, formed in 1985, is a leading specialty coffee retailer and one of the best
known brands today
i
. In addition to its sale of high?quality coffees, Starbucks retail stores also
offer Italian?style espresso beverages, cold blended beverages, complementary food items,
coffee?related accessories and equipment, premium teas, and a line of compact discs. Outside of
its company?operated retail stores, Starbucks also sells packaged coffee and tea products, ready?
to?drink beverages including its bottled Frappuccino® beverages and Starbucks DoubleShot®
espresso drinks, ice creams, and other products mainly through licensing relationships. The
company’s brand portfolio includes Tazo® teas, Starbucks Hear Music® compact discs, Seattle’s
Best Coffee®, and Torrefazione Italia® coffee.
Throughout its history, Starbucks has been known for its aggressive store expansion, as it
seemed impossible to open new stores quickly enough to keep up with demand. However,
since its stock falling from about $80 per share near the end of 2006 to its current price of about
$18 per share
ii
, along with a dramatic decline in the growth of its same?store sales last quarter
iii
,
it seems that Starbucks may have run out of growth opportunities. Furthermore, as other
specialty coffee retailers such as Peet’s Coffee and Tea and Caribou Coffee have entered the
market, and as competition from fast food chains such as Dunkin’ Donuts and McDonald’s has
increased, Starbucks has lost market share. Therefore, it may appear that the company is in
decline.
Despite these conditions, Starbucks remains the strongest company in the industry and it has
many opportunities to increase its profits. The major issues facing the company include
maintaining the Starbucks Experience for customers, store expansion and real estate issues,
competition from fast?food chains and other specialty coffee retailers, specialty operations,
generating more demand and penetrating new markets, and lowering input costs. Since the
return of Howard Schultz in January 2008, much has been done that addresses the first three
issues mentioned. The analysis in this report will help reaffirm those initiatives as well as
discover others that address the last three issues and will enhance the company’s performance.
Harkness Consulting
2
Starbucks must seek more licensing relationships that will increase revenues from specialty
operations at little cost, and also expose the brand. Existing retail stores must attract more
customers and increase sales, especially after the morning rush hours, and can do so by
expanding non?coffee beverage options. Finally, the company will drastically reduce its input
costs by abandoning purchases of Fair Trade Certified
TM
coffee, which can be accomplished
without drawing negative attention to the brand.
Company History
Starbucks began as a whole bean coffee seller in Seattle, Washington at Pikes Place in 1971
iv
.
The original location’s name was “Starbucks Coffee, Tea, and Spices,” This caused some
confusion and was later shortened to the “Starbucks Coffee Company.” The name Starbucks
comes from the first mate in the Moby Dick book by Herman Melville. Since its inception, the
company’s goal has been to find the premier coffee in the world and present it to people who
would otherwise not be exposed to it.
In 1982 Starbucks acquired the services of Howard Schultz as the director of retail operations
and marketing and the company began to expand its businesses by providing coffee to fine
restaurants and espresso bars
v
. Starbucks put an emphasis on freshness during this time and
would replace coffee it deemed not to be fresh, and thus unfit for consumption, for free so that
customers received only the best coffee at these restaurants. A major shift in the Starbucks
business plan occurred in 1983 when Schultz traveled to Italy and noticed the popularity of
espresso bars in Milan. This gave him the idea that this would work in the United States, and
Starbucks began testing this concept in 1985, successfully.
In 1985, Schultz founded Il Giornale
vi
, which offered brewed Starbucks products in his Milan
espresso bar replicas. Il Giornale succeeded and in 1987 Schultz secured the backing of local
investors and acquired Starbucks Assets and changed the name to “Starbucks Corporation”.
From 1987 to 1992 Starbucks Corporation grew to 165 locations. This also included a mail order
Harkness Consulting
3
catalog, a new headquarters, airport locations, and deals with several airlines to serve coffee on
board.
On June 26
th
, 1992 Starbucks IPO’d at a price of $17 per share and closed trading on the first day
at $21.50 per share
vii
. SBUX common stock is traded on the Nasdaq exchange. Since then,
Starbucks has been one of the leaders in stock incentive programs involving even its part?time
baristas. Starbucks was one of the first and still the most active companies in granting stock
options to its entry?level employees regardless of salary. This is one of the reasons that
Starbucks has been able to have such a high level of service over the years, because its
employees care about the public perception of the company.
From 1992 to 2000 the Starbucks Corporation continued to grow and flourish by increasing its
store total to an astounding 3,501 stores. During this time the company acquired Tazo® teas &
Hear Music® in 1999, in hopes that people would view Starbucks as a destination, instead of
simply a coffee shop
viii
. Starbucks has continued to acquire companies in order to make the
transformation from simple coffee bar to entertainment destination by offering high speed
internet since 2001, and starting events for local artists and musicians in the recent years.
Throughout the years Starbucks has grown its core business away from just coffee to a
diversified portfolio including many different goods. The company’s current product portfolio
includes
ix
:
• Over 30 blends and single?origin coffees
• Unlimited combinations of brewed coffee and tea products
• Fresh foods; which includes pastries, sandwiches & salads
• Music, books, and film
• Packaged drinks and Starbucks liqueurs
• The Starbucks Card ($2.5 Billion in activations and reloads since 2001)
Harkness Consulting
4
In addition to its extensive product offerings, the Starbucks Corporation has many brands
which it cultivates including; Starbucks Entertainment, Starbucks Hear Music®, Tazo® Tea,
Ethos Water, Seattle’s Best Coffee®, and Torrefazione Italia® coffee. The successful
management of all of these brands pulled together represents the Starbucks portfolio in most
Starbucks locations.
Aside from products and brands, Starbucks is one of the most globally conscious corporations
in America. In 2006 Starbucks donated $36.1 million in cash and products, volunteered 383,000
hours in local communities, required growers to use strict environmental guidelines, used 20%
renewable energy in stores, and actively recycled in almost 80% of stores in US and Canada
x
.
Starbucks has established itself as the coffee leader in the world and has done so on a socially
and environmentally conscious platform. Throughout the years, the company has been the
industry leader in promoting conservation in its actions and its preaching to the rest of the
world. During this time, the company has surpassed all competition in this market because of
its quality products and its focus on service. Starbucks has created a system of business where
even the lowest paid employee is still encouraged to take pride in the company for which he
works because it is tied to his compensation, which has helped to infiltrate the mission
statement of Starbucks into all levels of employees.
Competitive Analysis
Porter’s Five Forces Summary for Starbucks
Acting Force Level of Threat to Profits
Internal Rivalry Mid
Entry Low?mid
Substitutes and Complements Mid
Supplier Power Low
Buyer Power Low
Internal Rivalry
As the specialty beverage industry only grows more competitive, Starbucks’ dominant
positioning with a large market share is continuously under pressure. Since its inception,
Harkness Consulting
5
Starbucks has stimulated the overall market, creating a positive spillover effect that increased
the demand for quality coffee beverages. Therefore, even though Starbucks has rapidly
expanded, so have local coffeehouses and ‘mom?and?pop’ stores. Thus, elasticity has increased
with the variety of substitutes available to consumers offering the same product: premium
coffee, friendly staff, and a comfortable milieu. For this reason, recent trends indicate industry
stagnation within the domestic market as coffeehouses are now ubiquitous. Though the trend
has peaked domestically, coffee and coffeehouses are still ingrained in the American culture
leaving this market profitable.
Fragmented rivalry is due to the nature of the industry, which is split between national,
regional, and local competitors domestically and abroad. Within the U.S., key national
competitors include Dunkin’ Donuts, McDonalds, and other fast food chains sprucing up and
diversifying their beverage menu. However, the targeted customer base differs as Starbucks
caters to high?end customers with its gourmet drinks. Nonetheless, the Starbucks Corporation
must be conscious of its price point, so as not to exclude too many potential patrons. Regionally,
the industry may be divided as follows among top rivals:
West coast: Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf and Peet’s Coffee and Tea
Midwest: Caribou Coffee and Panera
East coast: Tim Hortons
These companies are better direct competitors to Starbucks than the national fast food chains as
they appeal to the same consumer base and offer similar product selections. Caribou Coffee is
the second largest corporation within the domestic specialty beverage industry. However, as of
September 30, 2007 Starbucks operated 6,793 stores domestically and 1,712 stores internationally
while Caribou Coffee operated 447 stores domestically and 17 internationally
xi
. Lastly, local
competitors such as site?specific proprietorships and ‘mom?and?pop’ coffeehouses vie with
Starbucks as well. While they are not threats to general empire Starbucks has created, they do
reduce profit margins as they appeal to many coffee drinkers with their more personal
character. These smaller proprietorships are Starbucks’ greatest competitor abroad, which is
Harkness Consulting
6
why recent expansion plans have focused on capturing international markets. Clearly, there are
a large number of rivals within the specialty beverage industry creating a rather competitive
landscape.
Customers do not incur a monetary switching cost in the specialty beverage industry;
nonetheless, an emotional attachment to image and reputation keep them loyal to certain brand
names. Even though only a superficial difference exists between coffeehouses, firms
differentiate their products to capture customers from rival brands. The Starbucks name has
acquired a significant status and has ranked as one of the most influential brand names in the
American culture. With its well?trained baristas, comfortable atmosphere, and quick service,
Starbucks has incorporated important characteristics appealing to customers. In the Starbucks
business model, customers are more important than product. However, even though Starbucks
is able to sell its goods at a higher price point, it must be conscious of the elastic market. For
example, after increases in dairy costs –an input good every coffeehouse model– Starbucks
stores felt the need to announce the reason for price increases so as not to shock customers. The
company informed its customers of the pricing discrepancy because it did not want to lose their
future patronage due to the economic circumstances at the time. This example illustrates the
point that even though Starbucks has brand name loyalty, the company is still susceptible to the
elastic nature of the market.
Starbucks is able to remain competitive within the market due to its sheer size and business
model. As Starbucks takes advantage of economies of scale and scope, it follows a different cost
structure than other corporations in the market. First, Starbucks pays less for the products it is
able to buy in bulk such as dairy goods, syrups, paper goods, etc
xii
. For this reason, the
company reaps higher margins with its specialty drinks, which also help differentiate itself from
other coffeehouses. As customers know they can customize their drinks and the quality of the
drink is guaranteed based upon reputation, Starbucks is always in their evoke set. Next, as no
cooperative pricing exists in this industry, Starbucks prices its drinks based upon the elasticity
of its target customer. Appealing to conspicuous consumption, Starbucks prices are higher than
Harkness Consulting
7
its competitors, lending toward its high trend status. Last, Starbucks is able to differentiate
itself due to its commitment to reduce its environmental impact. Again, its size enables the
company to seek, incorporate and market these environmentally friendly endeavors. For
example, the company replaced cups and cup sleeves with ones that used post?consumer
recycled materials
xiii
. Also, Starbucks adheres to purchasing guidelines, The Commitment to
Origins, which promote economic transparency in not only buying the best coffee, but also at
premium prices to help farmers. These practices further differentiate Starbucks from many of
its competitors.
Barriers to Entry
Within the specialty beverage industry, independent ‘mom?and?pop’ coffeehouses are able to
compete against the larger brands like Starbucks and McDonalds, though on a localized level,
because coffee is coffee. As the main input goods are relatively the same for existing and new
companies, there are no true barriers to entry. Startup costs are not limiting due to the fact that
unit costs do not fall over time within the experience curve, stores do not require a large
amount of floor space, and the industry lacks the use technology, which is normally a huge
initial cost. Thus, identifying an untapped convenient location or niche positioning with a
select consumer base lures companies or individuals to establish their own coffeehouse. Such
easy entrance into the market indicates that on a long?term horizon, profit margins will
decrease within the industry.
However, there are several factors to consider before entering the market of specialty beverages.
First is a general concern all entrepreneurs face: the rule of thumb states that roughly two?thirds
of small businesses fail in the first three years. Next, one must consider the post?entry
conditions and how to compete against Starbucks. Once a startup differentiates itself and
establishes its consumer base, it must continue to fight against the reliability of Starbucks’
quality and the Starbucks experience. Thus, a large amount of startup money must be spent on
advertising to gain market share. Additionally, it is harder for those stores to grow and develop
under the Starbucks shadow. The size and power of Starbucks allow the company to control
Harkness Consulting
8
brand recognition, prime real estate locations, raw material discounts, and so on. Moreover, the
controversial use of predatory practices that Starbucks may or may not utilize also plays a role:
store location, exclusive leasing agreements, market saturation, and other efforts to stifle the
emergence of rivals into the market.
Nonetheless, Starbucks has also felt the pressures of competition and has had to adapt. For
instance, the company is currently revamping its coffee line to offer smaller, cheaper cups
xiv
while using new machines that create one cup of coffee individually so that the taste is fresher
xv
.
This act can be seen as another way Starbucks is modernizing in order to maintain its massive
market share, and repress others from contemplating entry.
Threat of Substitutes and Complements
Starbucks only holds roughly 10% of the domestic coffee consumption
xvi
, therefore product?for?
product substitution as well as generic substitution are important to analyze. There is a large
variety of beverages available ranging from energy drinks or soda pop to juice or water. If one
considers the social aspect of coffee, alcoholic beverages may also be taken into concern.
However, Starbucks sells a large selection of these beverages within its stores. While the
majority of coffee drinkers do not substitute away from coffee or coffee related beverages such
as espresso or blended drinks, the most direct substitute is tea, which Starbucks sells under its
own Tazo® Tea brand. Due to current economic conditions and consequently a change in the
competitive landscape, Starbucks must be weary of at home production, especially as premium
coffeemakers are being built to make single serving cups at a fraction of the cost. Again,
Starbucks has covered this segment as it offers Starbucks branded coffee at various grocery
store locations and warehouse club stores. Thus, the company has done a good job hedging
against the threat of substitutes with the variety of beverages it offers.
The threat of customers substituting away from Starbucks for direct competitors such as Peet’s
Coffee and Tea or Caribou Coffee is a genuine concern. As they all pride themselves on
customer service, specialty drinks, and milieu, they are truly hard to differentiate. On the other
Harkness Consulting
9
hand, competitors such as McDonalds or Dunkin’ Donuts have a negative connotation of being
‘cheap’, which does not appeal to Starbucks’ targeted customer base. Therefore, this
demographic will tend not to substitute away from the high stature brand names.
Within its store locations, Starbucks offers food selections to complement beverage purchases.
For instance, the menu consists of pastries, confections, and pre?made foods such as salads and
sandwiches. When a trial to introduce warm breakfast food provided less than desired results,
the company decided to focus more on its core: fresher and tastier baked goods. Starbucks truly
does not need to concern itself with diversifying its food selection as its current selection
encompasses enough to accompany a coffee drink and satisfy customers. In addition to edible
complements, Starbucks also retails coffee related complements such as mugs, coffeemakers,
and other merchandise. However, such complements do not boost the demand for specialty
beverages enough to be a considerable factor.
Supplier Power
As noted, Starbucks is able to take advantage of its size and benefit from economies of scale.
Though it is able to purchase its input goods from relatively any supplier, the company paid
23% more than the market price for all of its coffee in fiscal 2005
xvii
. This was done in an effort
to abide by its Commitment to Origins in purchasing Fair Trade Certified
TM
coffee. Regardless
of the power Starbucks possesses due to the volume of goods demanded, suppliers are rather
limited because of the conditions within their own markets. As the input markets – comprised
of coffee bean plantations, dairy farmers, and the like – sell commodities, price is determined by
supply and demand. Therefore, due to the high competitiveness of the market, substitutes are
available if Starbucks desires to buy at a different price point. Additionally, suppliers cannot
forwardly integrate due to their remote locations and lack of retail capabilities. Basically,
Starbucks holds all the power in the relationships is has with its suppliers.
Harkness Consulting
10
Buyer Power
Starbucks decides the price at which it sells its drinks based upon the price elasticity of its
consumers and the current prices at rival stores. As the company offers a vertically
differentiated product where the status of higher quality is based upon perception, it is able to
sell at a higher price point. Thus, prices are non?negotiable as the customers have no bargaining
power with Starbucks. Even though patrons may buy from other coffeehouses or purchase
different beverages, due to the high availability of substitutes, Starbucks reacts more to product
competition than individual consumer demands to maintain market leadership.
SWOT Analysis
Strengths
• Brand recognition and consumer loyalty
• Diverse product portfolio catering to all tastes and ages, including non?coffee beverages
and food items
• Excellent customer service and the value of the Starbucks experience
• Licensing relationships with top?brands such as Pepsi?Cola and Kraft that minimize
costs and leverage the strategic advantages of those companies
xviii
• Strong employee relationships
• Economies of scale providing superior distribution networks and supplier power
• Primly?located retail stores
• Positive image attributed to social responsibility
Weaknesses
• Pay 23% more for coffee than market prices
• Saturation of the market diminishes long?term growth prospects
• No monetary switching costs for consumers
• Negative large corporation image
• Potential limitations of international expansion due to cultural clashes with American
coffee experiences
Harkness Consulting
11
Opportunities
• Have the ability to reduce premiums paid for coffee
• Room for international expansion (78% of revenues came from the United States in fiscal
2007 and international same?store sales growth is strong)
xix
• Room to compete on multiple fronts including quality and price
• Increase licensing relationships to further utilize brand strength to capture profits at
little cost to the company
Threats
• Increasing coffee and dairy prices
• Intense competition in the specialty coffee beverage business
• Unfavorable economic conditions that lower the demand for expensive beverages
• Community resistance to store expansion
• The possibility that the demand for specialty coffee is a fad
• Diverging from the Starbucks experience
• Further diversification of fast food restaurants that cuts into market share
Financial Analysis
Perhaps the largest financial problem to which Starbucks owes its declining stock price is the
slowdown in its same?store sales, which have experienced diminished growth for some time
Harkness Consulting
12
Harkness Consulting
13
and grew only 1% in Q1 of 2008
xx
. This leads one to question whether the company’s
aggressive store expansion has led to cannibalization. Company?operated retail stores ha
nearly doubled since 2003, with an increase of about 3,000 domestic stores
ve
rapid
xxi
. During such
expansion, revenue growth rates can only be maintained if transactions are higher at the new
locations than the amount that was lost from existing stores, costs such as rent are lower at the
new stores, or if the new stores relieve capacity pressures at the existing high volume locations.
An ideal scenario would be the opening of a new store in a less visible location, meaning it has
lower rent costs, which attracts many customers away from high volume stores, thereby freeing
up service capacity at the premium locations, which will attract new customers
xxii
. If such
opportunities are scarce, then the company must consider limiting its expansion. While these
opportunities may be waning in the United States, the international data is encouraging.
Domestic company?operated retail revenues grew by almost 20% between 2006 and 2007. This
growth is substantial, however, international company?operated retail revenues grew by more
than 30%
xxiii
. In fact, international same?store sales growth has been quite strong
xxiv
.
An equally large concern due to the declining same?store sales growth is whether the recent
turmoil of the United States economy has made it difficult for consumers to justify paying $4 or
more for a cup of coffee in the morning. Furthermore, increasing coffee prices inhibit the
performance of the entire industry. A closer look at the financial statements of Starbucks, and a
comparison to one of its competitors, will shed some light on these problems and help identify
some of the strengths and weaknesses of the company.
The following analysis compares the financial performance of Starbucks to Peet’s Coffee and
Tea
xxv
. Dunkin’ Donuts may have also been a comparison, since it is believed that recent
developments in the economy may be causing SBUX to lose customers to DD, but financial
information is not available as it is not a publicly traded firm. Nevertheless, PEET is similar to
SBUX in many ways and is in many of the same markets. The most concerning information on
its income statement shows that the cost of goods sold of Starbucks is outpacing its sales
revenues. Although the two year compound annual growth rate of the company’s sales
revenues is 21.56%, its COGS grew by 23.90% in the same time period (2005?2007). This is
troubling further because this may be an industry?wide phenomenon and therefore, little may
be done to overcome this problem. The fact that Peet’s COGS grew by 21.02% versus a growth
of 19.31% in sales revenues over this time period suggests that increasing coffee prices are
hurting the industry as a whole. However, the good news is that Starbucks maintains a higher
growth rate in gross profits than Peet’s (19.91% vs. 17.83% in 2007), although these figures have
declined from 25.39% and 20.62%, respectively, in 2005. The figure below shows the trend in
gross profits as a percentage of sales revenues for both companies.
Vertical Common Size Gross Profits
48.0%
50.0%
52.0%
54.0%
56.0%
58.0%
60.0%
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Date
Gross profit (% of Sales)
SBUX
PEET
Starbucks also looks rather healthy compared to Peet’s in that it has a positive, although
declining, growth rate in net income in recent years while Peet’s has actually experienced
negative growth rates in net income.
Harkness Consulting
14
Including the balance sheet in this analysis, there is almost no difference between the
companies’ net cash conversion cycles. In fact, Starbucks has a very healthy downward trend in
the cycle. This means that over the past few years, Starbucks has been able to reduce the time
between the day it pays its suppliers and the day it turns that investment into cash. Therefore,
it has reduced the time it needs to tie up its capital in the business process, which is better for its
bottom line.
Starbucks Corporation Peet?s Coffee & Tea
Financial Ratios 9/30/2007 10/1/2006 10/2/2005 2007 2006 2005
AR Turn 36.75 37.52 33.39 32.98 35.11 34.01
Days AR 10 10 11 11 10 11
AP Turn 11 11 12 11 10 9
Days AP 33 32 31 33 36 39
Inv Turn 6 5 5 5 5 5
Day Inv 61 68 77 68 67 77
Net Cash
Conversion Cycle 37 45 57
46
42
49
ROE 29.81% 26.93% 23.65% 6.10% 6.15% 8.49%
Growth in Book
Value 104.53% 107.73%
Although the cash conversion cycle displays a healthy trend, the most dramatic difference
between these companies is their returns on equity. Compare the ROE of Starbucks of 29.81%
in 2007 versus 6.10% for Peet’s. This means that Starbucks is much better at generating profits
with the money invested by shareholders.
Although most this news thus far, with the exception of the growth rate of its COGS, at least as
compared to its competitor has been rather positive, the stock price of Starbucks has been
declining, for the most part, since October 2006. On October 6, 2006, SBUX traded for $38.41 per
share, compared to March 2008, where it has fluctuated between $17 and $18 per share. In the
past year, SBUX has underperformed the S&P 500, as evidenced by the graph below
xxvi
.
Harkness Consulting
15
SBUX has also underperformed PEET in the last year, which is especially surprising in light of
the previous analysis. This news does not necessarily mean SBUX is undervalued, but it also
may indicate that PEET is overvalued.
Despite rising coffee prices and economic downturn, Starbucks’ problems are rooted in
declining same?store sales, which may have other contributors such as cannibalization from
aggressive store expansion. Furthermore, although it is true that coffee prices are on the rise, it
is also true that Starbucks pays a premium for Fair Trade Certified
TM
coffee. In fact, in 2005,
Starbucks paid on average 23 percent more for its coffee than market prices. If management
decides this is an issue with which the company is ready to deal, Harkness associates will
Harkness Consulting
16
perform a more rigorous analysis that compares the gross margins of the company’s operations
including purchases of the Fair Trade coffee to those expected gross margins where the
company pays market prices for all coffee.
Strategic Issues and Recommendations
Since the return of Howard Schultz as the company CEO, Starbucks has made many changes to
its retail stores. Schultz believed that many of the company’s struggles came out of its
diverging from what customers expected out of the Starbucks experience. Changes included
plans to phase out hot breakfast items that took away from the coffee smell in stores, lower
machines that allow customers to see their drink being made, and giving baristas more control
over each individual drink. The company has also decided to experiment with a $1 refillable
cup of coffee in order to take market share away from competitors like McDonald’s and
Dunkin’ Donuts, whose customers have more price elastic demand. Also to deal with the real
estate effects on declining same?store sales, the company decided to cut back domestic store
expansion, while focusing on international store expansion to keep up with demand abroad.
While many of these initiatives are steps in the right direction, there are other strategic issues
that the company has yet to address.
Many critics of Starbucks claim that the company has spread itself too thin in recent years by
selling products like chocolate and ice cream that haven’t performed that well and hurt the
company’s bottom line. It should first be noted that these specialty operations, which include
all operations outside of company?operated retail such as the packaged coffee and tea which is
sold in the grocery store, bottled ready?to?drink beverages, chocolate, ice cream, coffee liqueur,
and its entertainment business, constitute only 15% of the company’s business
xxvii
. Furthermore,
most of these operations are conducted through licensing relationships with other companies.
For example, the packaged coffee and tea products available in grocery stores are sold through
a licensing relationship with Kraft Foods. Kraft manages all distribution, marketing,
advertising and promotion of theses products. Starbucks sells its ready?to?drink beverages such
as the bottled Frappuccino® beverages and DoubleShot® espresso drinks through a joint
Harkness Consulting
17
venture with Pepsi?Cola. Additionally, Dreyer’s sells the Starbucks ice cream and Hershey sells
its chocolate.
Thus, since these specialty operations are such a small portion of the business and since they
require little capital investment, it is clear that Starbucks does not have much to lose by
maintaining these relationships. In many cases, the company is just selling its brand name and
collecting royalties. In others, such as the joint venture with Pepsi?Cola, Starbucks is leveraging
the strategic advantages of its partner in the soft drink industry to sell products in a market in
which it might otherwise not be able to compete. Therefore, not only does Starbucks have the
advantage of incurring few costs in these relationships, but it also stands to gain significant
revenues from their operations. Additionally, these licensing relationships put the Starbucks
name further into the public eye, which helps marketing and increases brand recognition. For
these reasons, the Harkness Consulting team recommends that the company further seek such
licensing relationships. It is preferred that the Starbucks looks for those that require as little
capital as possible invested on its own part, such as those that simply license the brand name
and allow the company to collect royalties at no cost, unless it is believed that substantial
returns will be gained from a joint venture. Furthermore, Starbucks should only seek licensing
relationships in adjacent markets, or those that go along with the Starbucks experience, to
prevent negative brand image. For example, the consulting team is confident that management
will not pursue a licensing relationship to create a Starbucks hamburger.
While attention to detail is important, further recommendations will focus on the company?
operated retail segment, since it constitutes 85% of the business. Furthermore, 75% of retail
sales come from coffee
xxviii
. As noted in the financial analysis section of this report, one of the
largest problems on the company’s financial statements is that its COGS are increasing faster
than its sales revenues. If Starbucks could find a way to lower its input costs, then the company
would be in a much healthier financial position and would have much more flexibility in
dealing with its competitors. Fortunately, Starbucks is in such a position. In fiscal 2005,
although only a small fraction of the coffee the company purchases is Fair Trade Certified
TM
,
Harkness Consulting
18
those purchases caused Starbucks to pay 23% more on average for all of its coffee than market
prices. The consulting team recognizes that the Fair Trade certification puts a positive mark on
the already scrutinized brand image of the company. However, current research shows that
Fair Trade practices do not have a positive impact on coffee farming communities in third
world countries
xxix
. Therefore, the consulting team recommends that the company discontinue
its purchases of Fair Trade Certified
TM
coffee, along with a PR campaign that divulges the facts
about Fair Trade practices and Starbucks’ commitment to world justice. The company may
even decide to start a program or charity such as one that builds schools or hospitals in coffee
farming communities. The main point is that discontinuing purchases of Fair Trade Certified
TM
coffee will dramatically lower the company’s input prices, and that this can be done without
tarnishing the company’s corporate image.
Not only will paying less for coffee directly increase the company’s profits, but it will also give
Starbucks more room to compete with other companies on prices. Although Starbucks claims
that it strives to compete on quality, due to recent economic conditions, many consumers have
been turned on to buying cheap coffee at McDonald’s and Dunkin’ Donuts, and lowering prices
may have a dramatic impact on sales. Therefore, the team recommends that Starbucks lower its
prices on coffee in stores, while maintaining current price levels on add?ins and other products,
since it is believed that consumers are most price?elastic in their demand for coffee, but the
customers who add four pumps of flavored syrup will pay about anything to do so.
Another area in which the retail segment of Starbucks should focus is its offerings of non?coffee
beverage options. Although Starbucks is a coffee retailer, many customers are drawn to the
Starbucks experience without actually liking coffee. Therefore, expanding these non?coffee
beverage options and increasing their promotion will allow the company to serve a larger
market. Furthermore, while a large portion of a store’s business is concentrated in the morning
hours before customers go to work, there are substantial growth opportunities in increasing
business in the later hours of the day. This strategy will increase sales during the late mornings
and early afternoons, when parents taking care of their kids during the day and adolescents
Harkness Consulting
19
hanging out after school are likely to frequent a Starbucks location. These small children and
students don’t like coffee but will drink the juices offered in stores. The company should pay
special attention to its line of Frappuccino® Blended Crèmes. Since the stores make these items
themselves, they allow for customization, which produces higher profit margins. Also there are
no close substitutes for these products and they provide these younger customers a good
transition to the coffee offerings
xxx
.
Appendix
Starbucks Income Statement Tables
Vertical Common Size 9/30/2007 10/1/2006 10/2/2005 10/3/2004 9/28/2003
Sales revenues 20.9% 22.3% 20.3% 29.9%
Cost of goods sold 42.5% 40.8% 40.9% 41.4% 41.3%
Gross profit 57.5% 59.2% 59.1% 58.6% 58.7%
Selling, general and administrative expenses 39.4% 40.7% 39.7% 39.6% 39.9%
Depreciation and amortization expenses 5.0% 5.0% 5.3% 5.5% 6.0%
Other operating expenses 3.1% 3.3% 3.0% 3.2% 3.5%
Total operating expenses 47.5% 48.9% 48.0% 48.3% 49.3%
Operating income 10.1% 10.3% 11.1% 10.3% 9.4%
Other gains and losses 1.2% 1.4% 1.5% 1.4% 1.2%
Pretax income 11.2% 11.6% 12.5% 11.7% 10.6%
Tax expense 4.1% 4.2% 4.7% 4.4% 4.1%
Income before extraordinary items 7.1% 7.5% 7.8% 7.3% 6.5%
Extraordinary items or accounting change 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Net income 7.1% 7.5% 7.8% 7.3% 6.5%
Compound Annual Growth Rate 9/30/2007 10/1/2006 10/2/2005
Sales revenues 21.56% 21.28% 25.01%
Cost of goods sold 23.90% 20.44% 24.47%
Gross profit 19.91% 21.87% 25.39%
Selling, general and administrative expenses 21.08% 22.97% 24.75%
Depreciation and amortization expenses 17.19% 15.71% 17.91%
Other operating expenses 23.60% 21.58% 16.71%
Total operating expenses 20.81% 22.08% 23.39%
Operating income 15.93% 20.88% 35.40%
Other gains and losses 9.27% 20.53% 38.05%
Pretax income 15.17% 20.84% 35.70%
Tax expense 12.73% 18.38% 34.42%
Income before extraordinary items 16.64% 22.28% 36.49%
Extraordinary items or accounting change
Net income 16.64% 22.28% 36.49%
Harkness Consulting
20
Peet’s Coffee and Tea Income Statement Tables
Vertical Common Size 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003
Sales revenues 18.5% 20.1% 20.3% 21.6%
Cost of goods sold 47.5% 47.0% 46.1% 46.5% 45.9%
Gross profit 52.5% 53.0% 53.9% 53.5% 54.1%
Selling, general and administrative expenses 43.5% 44.1% 40.7% 40.6% 43.8%
Depreciation and amortization expenses 4.4% 4.1% 4.2% 4.0% 4.1%
Other operating expenses 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total operating expenses 47.9% 48.2% 44.8% 44.5% 47.9%
Operating income 4.7% 4.8% 9.0% 8.9% 6.3%
Other gains and losses 0.6% 1.2% 1.0% 0.6% 1.0%
Pretax income 5.2% 5.9% 10.1% 9.6% 7.2%
Tax expense 1.9% 2.2% 3.9% 3.6% 2.9%
Income before extraordinary items 3.4% 3.7% 6.2% 6.0% 4.3%
Extraordinary items or accounting change 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Net income 3.4% 3.7% 6.2% 6.0% 4.3%
Compound Annual Growth Rate 2007 2006 2005
Sales revenues 19.31% 20.20% 20.92%
Cost of goods sold 21.02% 20.79% 21.28%
Gross profit 17.83% 19.69% 20.62%
Selling, general and administrative expenses 23.42% 25.40% 16.51%
Depreciation and amortization expenses 22.32% 21.97% 22.12%
Other operating expenses
Total operating expenses 23.32% 25.09% 17.00%
Operating income ?14.42% ?12.10% 45.40%
Other gains and losses ?9.59% 63.21% 23.33%
Pretax income ?13.93% ?5.24% 42.64%
Tax expense ?17.34% ?5.19% 40.20%
Income before extraordinary items ?11.83% ?5.27% 44.25%
Extraordinary items or accounting change
Net income ?11.83% ?5.27% 44.25%
Starbucks Balance Sheet Tables
Vertical Common Size 9/30/2007 10/1/2006 10/2/2005
Cash 5.3% 7.1% 4.9%
Short?term Investments 2.9% 3.2% 3.8%
Accounts receivable 5.4% 5.1% 5.4%
Inventory 12.9% 14.4% 15.5%
Other current assets 2.8% 2.9% 2.7%
Total current assets 31.7% 34.5% 34.4%
Property, plant and equipment 54.1% 51.7% 52.4%
Investments 5.2% 5.1% 7.4%
Other assets 4.1% 4.2% 2.1%
Harkness Consulting
21
Accounts Payable 7.3% 7.7% 6.3%
Accrued Liabilities 14.2% 14.9% 15.7%
Total current liabilities 40.3% 43.7% 34.9%
Long?term debt 10.3% 0.0% 0.1%
Warranty payable 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other liabilities 6.6% 5.9% 5.5%
Total liabilities 57.3% 49.7% 40.5%
Preferred stock 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Common stock 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Treasury stock 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Retained earnings 41.0% 48.6% 55.2%
Other comprehensive income 1.0% 0.8% 0.6%
Other equity adjustments 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total shareholders? equity 42.7% 50.3% 59.5%
Peet’s Coffee and Tea Balance Sheet Tables
Vertical Common Size 2007 2006 2005
Cash 8.6% 5.0% 13.9%
Short?term Investments 4.5% 12.8% 21.8%
Accounts receivable 4.7% 4.5% 3.5%
Inventory 13.8% 12.8% 11.4%
Other current assets 2.4% 2.5% 2.3%
Total current assets 35.6% 38.8% 53.9%
Property, plant and equipment 55.9% 53.9% 31.1%
Investments 4.4% 3.9% 11.4%
Other assets 4.1% 3.4% 3.7%
Accounts Payable 5.7% 7.2% 5.7%
Accrued Liabilities 5.0% 4.2% 3.7%
Total current liabilities 14.0% 14.4% 11.8%
Long?term debt 0.0% 0.0% 1.2%
Warranty payable 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Other liabilities 3.1% 2.3% 1.7%
Total liabilities 17.1% 16.7% 14.7%
Preferred stock 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Common stock 58.9% 60.9% 67.6%
Treasury stock 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Retained earnings 24.0% 22.4% 17.7%
Other comprehensive income 0.0% 0.0% ?0.1%
Other equity adjustments 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Total shareholders? equity 82.9% 83.3% 85.3%
Harkness Consulting
22
Harkness Consulting
23
i
Starbucks 10-K 2007
ii
finance.google.com: SBUX
iii
Financial Alchemist, “Starbuck’s Traffic Decline Due to Cannibalization,” http://financial-
alchemist.blogspot.com/2008/02/starbucks-traffic-decline-due-to.html
iv
www.starbucks.com: Company factsheet
v
www.starbucks.com: Company timeline
vi
www.starbucks.com: Company timeline
vii
www.starbucks.com: Company factsheet
viii
www.starbucks.com: Company timeline
ix
Starbucks 10-K 2007
x
www.starbucks.com: Company factsheet
xi
Starbucks and Caribou Coffee 10-K 2007
xii
Starbucks 10-K
xiii
www.starbucks.com: Company factsheet
xiv
The Boston Globe, “Starbucks testing sales of 8-oz. cup of coffee for $1,”
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/01/24/starbucks_testing_sales_of_8_oz_cup_of_coffee_for_1/
xv
The New York Times, “Starbucks Plans to Return to Its Roots,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/business/20sbux.html?scp=3&sq=starbucks&st=nyt
xvi
Morningstar Analyst Report by J ohn Owens
xvii
www.starbucks.com: Fair Trade and Coffee Social Responsibility
xviii
Starbucks 10-K 2007
xix
Starbucks 10-K 2007
xx
Graph from www.wikinvest.com: SBUX
xxi
Starbucks 10-K 2007
xxii
Financial Alchemist, “Starbuck’s Traffic Decline Due to Cannibalization,” http://financial-
alchemist.blogspot.com/2008/02/starbucks-traffic-decline-due-to.html
xxiii
Starbucks 10-K 2007
xxiv
Graph from www.wikinvest.com: SBUX
xxv
The following statistics are compiled from the financial statements listed in the company’s 10-K (2005-07)
xxvi
Stock charts from finance.google.com
xxvii
Starbucks 10-K 2007
xxviii
Starbucks 10-K 2007
xxix
Alan Boise lecture, Senior Seminar 2008
xxx
In addition to the aforementioned references, the following book was instrumental for this analysis:
Michelli, J oseph. The Starbucks Experience: 5 Principles for Turning the Ordinary into Extraordinary. McGraw-
Hill, New York, NY: 2006.
doc_437870421.pdf