"Dumb" Starbucks

I am a huge fan of Starbucks. I go there at least twice a week, and every time I go I order the same thing: a venti iced chai tea latte. Why? Because I know that every time I order my drink it will taste predictably how I want it to, and I know that on every other block from the valley to downtown LA there will be a Starbucks to which I will have access. Starbucks, for me has become more than a brand; it has become a source of recognition, comfort, and dependability. Anywhere near a college campus or a workspace I can easily project my “brand-awareness” when I spot a Starbucks mermaid logo in the hands of a sleepless student or a working businessman and know immediately that they must have gotten their coffees from the Starbucks across the street. In my life, Starbucks has not only become a quality place to grab coffee, it has become a place; a space for my friends and I to gather and interact in a social setting, and as a social and economic hub of exchanges Starbucks has essentially become to me what Lurie would express in “Just Do What? The Brand as New Media Object” as an all-encompassing “object.” He writes, “the objectivity for the brand emerges out of relations between its parts, or rather its products (or services), and in the organization of a controlled relation to its environment—that is, to markets, competitors, the state, consumption and everyday life” (2).

I have particularly noticed that I become an extreme purchaser of Starbucks drinks every time the holiday season rolls around. At this time, I always look forward to ordering a pumpkin spiced latte or a gingerbread latte, which Starbucks not only advertises in commercials and large posters in the entranceway to the cashier, but also offers for a limited time to increase its business and to be a step-up above its competitors. As Lurie writes, such temporary periods of change, or intervals, in the flow of brand business creates hype, greater consumer awareness of the brand, and something for consumers to look forward to: “The intervals may be organized so as to produce branded products as the same, or as different. In the former case, the brand acts as a guarantor of the consistency of quality, while in the latter, the ‘response time’ may be organized so as to produce products as fashionable, as part of a collection, as new or up to date, or sometimes even as an event” (9). In fact, just the other day, I noticed that Starbucks had released a new drink: the vanilla macchiato. It seems that Starbucks has a way of repackaging the same drinks but with a slight twist, their marketing strategy to make their customers wait just long enough to be excited about a change, excited to try something new and willing to try the products that Starbucks is offering because of its dependability as a corporation.

I have chosen to focus on Lurie’s article, not only because I found it relative to my own Starbucks experiences, but also because of the article’s particular focus on “The brand as an object of law” (13). Recently, on February 9, a store opened in Los Feliz called “Dumb Starbucks,” offering the same drinks provided by Starbucks (attached to the prefix “dumb”) and using the same logo as Starbucks, with “dumb” added to it of course. I myself wondered how it was possible for the shop to stay open, given its possible infringement on brand copyright laws. According to The Hollywood Reporter in this article, the shop was able to stay open (albeit for a short period of time due to certain health violations) because of its use of parody and “fair use” laws, which is completely acceptable and legal in conjunction with trademark laws. The Hollywood Reporter website made a note of the store’s FAQ sheet which responded to the legality of the store in the following way: "Although we are a fully functioning coffee shop, for legal reasons Dumb Starbucks needs to be categorized as a work of parody art. So, in the eyes of the law, our "coffee shop" is actually an art gallery and the "coffee" you're buying is actually the art. But that's for our lawyers to worry about. All you need to do is enjoy our delicious coffee!" Although the shop closed after a few days, its existence and the comedic value it upheld created a huge media stir and a massive line of people outside of the store. It is possible that the parody store may have only promoted the Starbucks franchise that much more, or perhaps extended its parody on the persistence of human consumption of branding as a whole. The mile-long line outside of the store can only be a true testament to our recognition of and constant persuasion through brand recognition and consumerism.