Strategic Partners: For better or worse

Strategic alliances are not uncommon within the foodservice community, not even within the foodservice beverage division of the community. Sometimes, despite the best of intentions, strategic differences can occur between the two partners.

Over the next few weeks we will get to witness what is sure to become a very expensive dispute between two international foodservice brand powerhouses…Kraft Foods and Starbucks Corp.

According to an article on thestreet.com, Kraft has begun arbitration to challenge Starbucks’ attempt to end a 12-year agreement.

The dispute, it appears, is over the right to market Starbucks’ bagged coffee products. Starbucks has asserted that Kraft failed to meet certain provisions of their arrangement, including keeping Starbucks involved in major marketing initiatives, and has said those failures caused “the erosion of brand equity.”

In their defense, since executing the agreement in 1998, Kraft has taken the business from $50million to $500million in annual revenue. So there seems to be slightly more than “erosion of brand equity” behind Starbucks decision to terminate the agreement.

As the arbitration process evolves and more information becomes available, maybe we’ll get a more accurate picture of what is really at stake, and how much this dispute will cost.

In the meantime, the process has raised a question I feel is important. What is more important to a company/brand – maximum annual revenue or brand integrity and control?

Sure, my question is a somewhat loaded question. What company doesn’t want to achieve the maximum annual revenue possible? That’s what companies are designed for…annual revenue. If developing a strategic alliance with a partner is going to help you increase revenue (and/or decrease operating costs), then at the surface, it would be a wise decision.

However, decisions like that always come at a cost and usually that cost is brand control and/or brand integrity.

We don’t need to look any further than this past July when tensions arose between Honest Tea and Coca Cola over wording on the labels of the tea company’s product line. Honest Tea, in an attempt to retain brand integrity and brand control refused to change the wording. Coca Cola respectfully agreed with Honest Tea management, and no changes were made. Since Coke has a financial stake in Honest Tea, we can’t really define them as “strategic partners”, but even so, the importance of brand identity/control can be seen from this example.

A more likely dispute between strategic partners would arise when a decision is made to grow a product line thru new product offerings. The brand owner, after establishing brand recognition and value, decides they want to cash in on that exposure. The brand company develops some complimentary products to extend their product offerings only to find the synergies shared with their strategic partner on the original item(s) aren’t there on the new product offerings.

With the recent success of the Via line of instant coffee products, and the inevitable brand extensions to follow, the Starbucks decision to end their alliance with Kraft is a little easier to understand.

We’ll have to wait and see how much the decision costs Starbucks in terms of money and brand dilution.