Starbucks In The Forbidden City

I think that the Starbucks in The Forbidden City and the Insadong district should pull out of there. I think that the money and effort can go it to a store that will be productive elsewhere. I don’t see a need in being in a location where the majority of the population does not want the Starbucks there. I think that it is very much “American” thing to try and shove our way in and that is not the life style of many of the locals.

OLD ASSUPTION VERSUS MARKET REALITY

The first thing that I base my decision off of is a section from the book The Art of Global Thinking. The section is titled Old Assumption Versus Market Reality (Cyr, 2002). This section tells how Genera Motors assumed that the U.S. only cared about gadgets and only produced vehicles with different levels of cars with gadgets. The wealthier you were the more gadgets a person had in the car. This thought failed them because times changed and so did the wants for cars. The Japanese were able to produce a fuel

efficient car that people were wanting instead. The Americans had made choices that cost them big in the long run. I think that this related to the case with Starbucks. Their assumption is that because they have prevailed so well in other areas that they will do the same in The Forbidden City and the Insadong district. The thing with these areas is they are sacred to the locals and many others. I can see Starbucks idea, that they would bring comfort to tourist or even bring tourist in, but that is not the only motive to the locals. I think that Starbucks should respect that and use the money to put in to a new store somewhere else or an existing one.
EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH
The second concept that lead me to think that vacating the two places would be a wise decision is based on the Experimental Approach (Williams, 2016, pp. 142-144). Starbucks has been there long enough to see what is working and what is not working. This is the experiment part. They have taken signs down and tried to fit in as best as possible in order to comply with the locals but they are still not content. I think that is a large cue that no matter what they do to try and be like the other vendors they will never be like the other vendors because it is an American company. I don’t think it would matter if they had a local as a manager or not there are too many people who are against the store being there, as a matter of fact it may cause more issues. They will always be an American company whether or not they sell local coffee and teas.
MINIMIZNG POLITIAL RISK
The third thing that I have based my choice off of is the concept of Minimizing political risk (Williams, 2016, pp.

170-172). I think that if they want to avoid the potential political risk they should pull the stores out. This could end as bad publicity for Starbucks. History tells us that the bad news is what we hear more often than the good. I don’t think that this issue will cause any Political Uncertainty. I do, on the other hand, for see there being potential for Policy Uncertainty. I can see the locals taking the initiative to get laws adjusted to protect the areas that are sacred and make it to where only locals can run local businesses on the premises. This would have a direct impact on Starbucks. I think that in order for them to protect their reputation they can take the store out before it even gets to that point. I do not see it being worth the fight when they have so many stores over there that are profitable. They can put the Starbucks close to the area and still get the same

clientele.
THE COLLECTIVE “WE” IN JAPAN
The final concept that I drew my decision off of is the Collective “we” in Japan. (Cyr, 2002). To site the book “Collectivism is to japan what individualism is to America”. I think that is the best way to put that. Starbucks is there to make money, even of that means changing the appearance of the shop to what they serve. The people that work there are not just about making money but keeping what is sacred, sacred. There is an issue with stores that are having to shut down due to renovation and the one American store is hanging in there when a local company can be there. The two sides are fighting from two different perspectives and this simply because they come from two different cultures. I personally do not think that any person from any culture should go in to a forging culture and try to push their norms on the locals. Starbucks is assuming that they are valued there and not they are not but there are more traditional shops that would be more valued there. This assumption is limiting Starbucks at that store, when they can open a different one that would not have all the constraints that come with working with in a sacred area.