The Starbucks consumer perception levels have fallen by two-thirds since the company promised to hire 10,000 refugees.
After in January, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz announced that the company is going to hire 10,000 refugees in response to US President Donald Trump’s temporary travel moratorium, the Starbucks Coffee brand has lost the loyalty of a large part of its clients.
Last month, Starbucks sharply criticized Trump for his temporary ban on immigration from seven countries with a predominantly Muslim population. In response, the company promised to hire 10,000 refugees during five years in protest against the Trump’s order.
However, about 50 percent of Starbucks clients disagree with leftist political opinions of the company’s CEO. As Yahoo Finance information website noted, the Schultz’s decision to attract migrants to the working process in the company has been sending the company’s “brand perception” into a downward spiral since January 29.
According to YouGov BrandIndex, “the Starbucks consumer perception levels have fallen by two-thirds since late January.”
“The perception tracker measures if respondents have ‘heard anything about the brand in the last two weeks, through advertising, news or word of mouth, was it positive or negative.’ In Starbucks’ case, perception is still overall positive, but significantly lower than it was prior to CEO Howard Schultz published a public letter outlining the company’s plans to give refugees jobs,” the Yahoo Finance’s article noted.
According to YouGov, just a week before the company’s announcement about its plans in January, 30 percent of respondents said they would consider spending money at Starbucks. However, after the Schultz’s statement, that number fell to 24 percent.
A #BoycottStarbucks movement also immediately appeared on Twitter after the company’s announcement and brought condemnation from coast to coast.
It is not the first time, when Starbucks has alienated its clients, publicly pursuing a controversial political agenda. In March 2015, the company had to abandon its ‘Race Together’ campaign that was intended “to be a catalyst for a larger conversation on race” relations in the US.