Differentiation: Starbucks vs. McDonald's

Despite what many people think, McDonald's is actually seen as the biggest competitor to Starbucks, rather than Dunkin' Donuts. In order to settle the product differentiation debate once and for all, I decided to do a taste test.

 McDonald's Iced Coffee
[RegularIced.jpg]

McDonald's iced coffee is not for the anti-sweet tooth. Its almost disgustingly syrupy. It's taste is good and has hints of chicory, which remind me of a coffee in the french quarter in New Orleans. My biggest issue is that when ordered as "medium iced coffee" it comes choc full of sweetener and cream. I did not like this. Iced coffee should come black or you should be asked if you want the sweetener or cream added. Would rate the product quality 7/10 and the experience a 3/10.

Starbucks Iced Coffee


Starbucks's iced coffee is simple and plain. It did, however, have that faint Starbucks burnt coffee after taste. All in all, a much better and healthier option than McDonalds. I appreciate that. I rate the quality 6/10 and the experience 8/10.

As you can see, the experience at both firms are entirely different. Starbucks differentiates itself this way. McDonalds is simply trying to get you a low cost product.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Starbucks & Vertical Integration

Vertical integration is defined by the number of stages in a product's or service's value chain in which a firm engages. Starbucks, according to former CEO Howard Schultz, is what you would call "vertically integrated to the extreme." In other words, every single aspect of value-added business is managed from within, and Starbucks is constantly attempting to enhance and improve this model of doing business. By managing its economic exchanges through vertical integration, Starbucks has the ability to operate on an incredibly lean supply chain. For example, Starbucks buys and roasts and sells all of its own coffee beans, rather than outsourcing anything in the process. This is an example of a highly vertically integrated process. Rather than buying the coffee already roasted and made, they do it themselves to keep costs low and the process within managed oversight. The following is a link to a video conversation with Howard Schultz as he explains the history of Stra...
Read more

Imitation, Patents and "Dumb Starbucks"

Image
Although many think that a firm's patents do well to prevent imitation, there was one instance in which the opposite was the case for Starbucks. Source: KTLA In 2014, a popular TV show titled "Nathan for You" experimented with the imitation laws surrounding one of the world's most recognizable companies. Parody imitations are a loophole, so he created "dumb Starbucks" as a way to show an ailing coffee company how they could boost their sales. Because every single item in store, on the menu, and surrounding thebuilding had the word "dumb" before it, it was considered a parody. It didn't take long after opening for Nathan to attract attention from all over the world. Starbucks quickly shut the entire project down, but it was a prime example of how simple it was for one man to open a store that completely imitated what Starbucks was doing. And if the coffee was just as good, why would anyone choose to go to Starbucks? At least they were ge...
Read more

The Prisoner's Dilemma

According to the textbook, "the problem of cooperation can be best understood by analyzing a simple exchange game between two individuals", known as "The Prisoner's Dilemma." Starbucks's biggest competitor is McDonald's, which is contrary to what people may think. Many people assume that their biggest competitors are Dunkin' Donuts or independent coffee shops. The rise of the low cost, fast-food coffee option is actually the most threatening to Starbucks, not simply other coffee shops.  It is simple to explain a prisoner's dilemma situation for Starbucks. For example, the two players are Starbucks and McDonald's. Both must spend millions of dollars advertising their products. In an attempt to cooperate, they could potentially both agree to spend the same amount of money and each take half of the market share. Or, they could agree to spend no money on advertising, and still grow their sales. The dilemma exists, however, in that if one o...
Read more