November 28, 2009
Login | Register Now

Advertising Age: Your Online Source for Marketing and Media News


More from Ad Age:
Creativity
Ad Age China
Bookstore
Jobs
Ad Age On Campus
Sign up for E-mail Newsletters

Stay on top of the news, sign up for our free newsletters


'Time Warner Should Buy Starbucks'

Unless, er, It Shouldn't

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Submit to Digg Add to Google Share on StumbleUpon Submit to LinkedIn Add to Newsvine Bookmark on Del.icio.us Submit to Reddit

In any conversation involving two or more media junkies, it doesn't take long for talk to turn to Time Warner, sparking rounds of speculation about its strategy and prospects. Should it spin off Time Inc.? (I'm against.) Sell AOL? (I waffle.) Buy NBC? (Sure.)

During a recent corporate offsite, my colleague Glenn Coleman, editor of Financial Week, introduced a new one: "Time Warner should buy Starbucks," Glenn said. "Think fat pipe." I was fascinated.

It wouldn't actually be much of a stretch. Starbucks has essentially built a global distribution pipeline that delivers millions of consumer contacts a day. The chain already sells music and movies, of course, and now allows customers to download in-store music directly to their iPhones. Why not add a magazine rack stocked with People, Fortune and Real Simple? Why not sell DVDs of HBO series? Have AOL as the wi-fi home page?

Forget (for now) whether such a merger makes financial sense. It's intriguing, worthy of fun debate, and it points to a bigger issue: whether Time Warner is ultimately a content company or whether it needs as well to control the pipelines through which its goods are delivered.

Most insiders I've talked to believe this is the biggest question Jeff Bewkes has to answer -- and will, when he takes charge. They also think he'll ultimately reveal himself to be a content guy, with a strategy to reflect that.

Ah, well. I guess we won't be watching Entourage on our laptops while sipping lattes, after all.
7 Comments
Subscribe to comments on: 'Time Warner Should Buy Starbucks'
  By Nicholas | MontrĂ©al, QC October 3, 2007 04:27:16 pm:
Your idea is really not far-fetched. In fact, considering the poor work that distributors are doing for magazines and their forever increasing demands, controlling the pipelines would only help the distributrion. I have been preaching this route for many years now, but to no avail.

Nicholas Theodore
Media & Publishing Consulting
  By William | Richmond, VA October 4, 2007 08:55:25 am:
Glenn Coleman's concept is brilliant. However, wouldn't Conde Nast be a more appropriate cultural fit with Starbucks? Isn't Mr. Newhouse in a better position to make the Starbucks acquisition than Time Warner's Jeff Bewkes?
  By rebelcontent | Seattle, WA October 4, 2007 10:59:37 am:
The minute Starbucks adds a magazine rack to its stores, filled with publications that are readily available anywhere, is when it will lose the aspect of its brand that still attracts those who don't just see it as a caffeine filling station.
  By dvaughan14 | SAN DIEGO, CA October 4, 2007 11:03:14 am:
Culturally, yes -- financially, i would have to see the financials, but my first inclination is that TWX is stronger fiscally than Conde Nast -- from a pure market value perspective.

I don't think either entity could actually buy starbucks -- their market cap is in the billions of dollars.

All this said, it is a GREAT idea...

Daniel Vaughan
Director of Marketing & Sales Development – TransWorld Media, Oceanside, CA
  By belocke | Santa Monica, CA October 4, 2007 03:12:55 pm:
Horrible idea! Yes, Starbucks is a distribution outlet, but the amount of music and movies that they sell is small when compared to the traditional outlets such as Best Buy or Wal Mart. Add magazines, etc. and Starbucks becomes Wal Mart. I'm not buying my coffee at Wal Mart...
  By sirnoze | AUSTIN, TX October 4, 2007 07:57:18 pm:
Sure, this makes for interesting marketing fodder but Time Warner buying SBUX is just a gambit to monetize the 45-million customers that visit SBUX each week.


I agree with Geoffrey Moore, business clairvoyant, when he says, "If Starbucks is just trying to find more ways to monetize the traffic that comes through, this is a bad idea. At some point the customers will start to feel abused."


How does a combined Time Warner/SBUX improve the lives of customers? I dunno. I don't think it does.


john moore (from Brand Autopsy)

  By joaobacelar | Porto October 9, 2007 07:42:03 am:
It's interesting to think about it having "FNAC" in mind. Somehow doing it the inverse way.

FNAC positions itself as a culture provider (and promoter). Their sophiticated stores invite people to seat down, and spend time reading books or listening to CD's. Probably that's way they built instore Cafeterias... Mixing it this way has proved to be successful.

joao vasconcelos
Portugal




Stay on top of the news and stay ahead of the game—sign up for e-mail newsletters now!



Advertising Age: Your Online Source for Marketing and Media News