Money is fundamentally quantitative in theory. But in the real world, it is the most qualitative thing that could ever exist. Shoes are meant to cover feet. A local brand’s shoe does the job, but Nike’s Air Jordan shows more than it covers. It mirrors the money spent through its structure alone. If something is globally recognised, it is the next ‘cool’ thing.
Do you think that if you were in the heart of Seattle, near the smell of fresh coffee and the busy Pike Place Market, you would prefer a small coffee shop with top-notch quality over a Starbucks outlet? A survey found that 66% of consumers chose to go to a Starbucks over a local coffee shop when given the choice, primarily due to convenience and brand familiarity. But what if I told you that the local coffee shop in the heart of Seattle was the first-ever Starbucks café?
In 1981, a young New Yorker named Howard Schultz wandered into the original Starbucks store in Seattle. His mind was so blown away by the richness of the coffee it supplied that he joined the company. During a trip to Milan, Italy, in 1983, he fell in love with the country’s vibrant espresso culture. Inspired by the sense of community in Italian cafés, he envisioned bringing a similar experience to the United States, with Starbucks becoming a “third place” between work and home – a place where people could gather, relax, and enjoy a premium coffee experience.
The founders of Starbucks were hesitant, so they went on to start their own coffeehouse chain. In 1987, he was successful enough to purchase Starbucks for 3.8 million dollars and merge it into his own brand. Interestingly, Bill Gates Sr. played a crucial role in the funding process. He believed in Schultz, and Schultz believed in himself; the power-packed duo made Starbucks a global success.
The communities built around Italian cafés were his muse; Starbucks became his work of art. But if it's about community, why are local coffee shops, especially when designated by a member of such a community, so easily dismissed? Choosing Starbucks is a safe go-to choice. But is life not worth a museum of experiences?
Sure, Starbucks is cool, a giant marketing genius with teams dedicated to the goal. Then there’s a local coffee shop, definitely one of its kind, trying to build a community just like Starbucks once dreamed. You probably know the owner; if it’s a small town, the word of mouth is all the marketing that the little shop needs. Yet you walk into Starbucks with predictable tastes that your constant visits have built, resisting the urge to try something new.
Brands should not be cool because they are globally famous and luxurious; they should be cool because of how they transformed from little spaces into worldwide chain stores.
Global brands often advertise their products through public figures and celebrities. People see their favourite celebrities promoting a global brand, and it suddenly enters their trust circle. They forget that the celebrities they admire get paid for their features by the brands. Why do we link popularity with authenticity? Local businesses cannot afford to bring in film stars for promotion; all they expect is the community they grew up in to give them a chance.
The debate regarding Popularity Vs. Authenticity is becoming evident; recently, it was reflected in the controversy. Nishorama is a growing India-based ethnic brand attempting to build a global audience. Allegations surfaced when it was discovered that their new launch involving a set of bangles showcased on their site was not essentially theirs. They were allegedly copied from a Digital Creator’s Pinterest post, who addressed the same publicly.
The people revered the brand when it aspired for global status and had perfectly curated social media, owing to the power of Tishoramar of marketing. But it is now the centre of criticism by locals. We often confuse visibility with value and popularity with authenticity. Aesthetics can collapse, and coolness can be washed away by the waves of trends. What remains is “integrity”, which people read as the by-line of popularity. But when credibility seems to drown towards the seabed, realisation hits – integrity is the headline, popularity comes along with it and not through it.
Perhaps that is the reason global brands feel “cooler”. We live in a world where personal identity has started to be interpreted through the exterior logos. At the end of the day, a swoosh sign, a puma or a polo player on a horse as a part of your outfit will not determine your worth. Your “coolness” will be defined by your personality, just like a brand’s will be perceived by its values.
Coolness is not associated with global reach; it lies in the way a brand feels. The way a piece of clothing hugs and sculpts our bodies, the functionality of electronics, the delicious food or the perfect dining set matching the walls of the room – be it any sector, these are the things that give brands meaning. The brands, global or local, do not have to compete for the “cool” title. After all, a global brand was once a small store trusted by a fraction of its newfound customer base. The consumers made it “cool”, for what is a brand without its customers?
References: