Starbucks: A case study examining power and culture via radical sociodrama Bob Batchelor and Kaitlin Krister, Kent State University
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Starbucks: A case study examining power and culture
via radical sociodrama
Bob Batchelor and Kaitlin Krister, Kent State University
Abstract
based on notions of common good,
This paper employs a new theoretical philanthropy, and social consciousness. By
construct – radical sociodrama – as a lens to engaging with the corporation, the enterprise is
analyse how Starbucks exerts power in its assuming that one subscribes to its goals and
interactions with consumers and other aspirations. Starbucks chief executive Howard
stakeholders. Investigating the corporation’s Schultz (1997) discusses the importance of
use of language and symbols to create a creating culture in a chapter of his memoir
unique cultural community reveals how titled, ‘The imprinting of the company’s
Starbucks wields power to achieve its values’. Speaking to Schultz’s grandiosity, the
financial aims. Radical sociodrama is chapter epigraph quotes from Martin Luther
formulated from the pioneering work of King, Jr. on how a man should be measured in
Mickey (sociodrama) and Athens (radical challenging times. On inculcating culture,
interactionism). The new theory advances our Schultz explains, “Whether you are the CEO or
understanding of power and public relations a lower level employee, the single most
by demonstrating how organisations use important thing you do at work each day is
language and symbols to exert domination in communicate your values to others” (p. 81).
the exchange with consumers and As it engaged in creating a unique
stakeholders. community around its corporate mantra,
Starbucks became a lifestyle brand. There is
Introduction more going on than simply buying and selling
coffee. It is as if there is an unspoken calling to
The Starbucks corporate mission statement is a common set of goals and aspirations between
audacious in its ambition: “To inspire and corporation and consumer with each cup sold,
nurture the human spirit – one person, one or a secret wink and nod that provides some
cup, and one neighborhood at a time” sense of collective good, which not only
(Starbucks, n.d.). The language regarding the resonates in the United States, but also globally.
“human spirit” appears odd and out of place For example, in examining the company’s
as a corporate mantra. It seems an unusual success in China, Schultz (2011) explains, “The
ideology at the heart of a multinational Chinese had embraced Starbucks for the same
corporation. This lofty aspiration might be primary reason that customers in the other 52
more palatable as the mission of a nonprofit, countries we operate in had. Quite simply, there
arts institution, or non-governmental has always been a universal appeal in our
organisation (NGO), such as Amnesty ability to elevate the coffee experience by
International or Doctors Without Borders. creating a connection” (p. 305).
Yet, this kind of language – deliberately The irony in this exchange is that individuals
employed by the corporation to create a are eagerly granting what is basically a fast
common culture for company employees, food company the right to determine some
consumers, and other stakeholders – is central piece of his or her worldview. One deliberately
to the Starbucks global brand. chooses to buy into the ‘Starbucks Experience’
Starbucks’ use of language and symbols is and what the corporation designs that to mean.
at the centre of its concerted efforts to create a Journalist Chris Hedges (2009) points to the
community with and for its customers that challenge in this mind-set, where corporations
promotes its belief system, which it claims is
1
Batchelor, B. & Krister, K. (2012). Starbucks: A case study examining power and culture via radical
sociodrama. PRism 9(2): http://www.prismjournal.org/homepage.htmlcontrol how people characterise themselves, buyer both as an entity with innumerable
explaining: resources and in determining access to the
The purpose and goals of the product and luxury it symbolises. Athens
corporation are never questioned. (2010) differentiates between power and
To question them, to engage in domination, clarifying, “Although power can
criticism of the goals of the have multiple sources and thereby take on
collective, is to be obstructive and many different guises, domination always
negative. The corporations are the displays the same basic form – a certain person
powers that determine identity. or group performing the super-ordinate role in
The corporations tell us who we the construction of a social act” (p. 349).
are and what we can become. And Power and dominance, though roundly
the corporations offer the only rejected as negative consequences of the
route to personal fulfilment and public’s interaction with institutions and
salvation. If we are not happy organisations, is at the core of the public
there is something wrong with us. relations and communications function of
Debate and criticism, especially corporations. Americans routinely allow
about the goals and structure of corporations to exert power and dominance
the corporation, are condemned as over them every day. Heath (2008) portrays the
negative and ‘counterproductive.’ ubiquity of this exchange, explaining,
(Hedges, 2009, p. 117) “companies, nonprofits, and government
There is tacit and overt power in an agencies work to gain power, exert power to
environment where goods and services are accomplish their mission, and attempt to use
exchanged in a community created by one power to control their destiny” (p. 2). The
side of the relationship that has a vested natural question then, is why a democratic
interest in serving as an arbiter of style and society would accept such high levels of control
taste. and dominance?
Certainly, consumers hold free will and As indicated by Starbucks’ 2011 fiscal year
may opt out of the power relationship with a results, including record revenues of $11.7
megabrand like Starbucks by simply not billion, the creation of a Starbucks-centric
purchasing its products. However, the culture is critical to the enterprise’s financial
corporation’s pervasiveness (based on wellbeing. Starbucks realised that corporations
number of stores it operates in the U.S. and that master the art of communication through
globally and the resulting loss of alternative language and symbols find success. This is not,
neighbourhood coffeehouses) and however, a new concept. More than half a
engagement as a community status symbol century ago, the self-styled ‘father of public
make it nearly impossible to avoid in many relations,’ Edward Bernays (1947), claimed,
communities. “For only by mastering the techniques of
Although the customer purchases the communication can leadership be exercised
product from Starbucks, the concurrent fruitfully in the vast complex that is modern
development of a Starbucks lifestyle creates democracy in the United States” (p. 113).
significance that undermines the traditional Language allows corporations to persuade,
power structure between buyer and seller. explain, motivate and justify the actions they
Anyone walking into a Starbucks store, perform (Mickey, 1995, p. 27). Thus,
moseying up to the counter, and realising that corporations like Starbucks that excel in
in that contrived setting that a simple ‘large interacting with consumers often thrive in the
coffee’ does not exist, immediately marketplace, particularly when the product is a
understands how the ritualised ordering consumer good.
process, product names, and intensity of the Power and dominance are societal norms
sensory environment flips the power and enduring aspects of human existence.
relationship. The corporation dominates the However, corporations will meet resistance
2
Batchelor, B. & Krister, K. (2012). Starbucks: A case study examining power and culture via radical
sociodrama. PRism 9(2): http://www.prismjournal.org/homepage.htmlfrom critics if power and dominance are & Wehmeier, 2007; Ihlen, van Ruler &
exercised without legitimacy. Heath (2008) Fredriksson, 2009). In the case of consumer
argues, “The challenge is for each goods companies, like Starbucks,
organisation to be viewed as legitimate in its communicators actively invent pseudo-worlds
understanding of the situation in which it for consumers. Many of the creative worlds that
operates, the formulation of plans to communicators craft are based on fact (such as
accomplish its mission, and the crafting and quarterly earnings, speeches, fact sheets), while
accommodating means to implement plans to other aspects contain potentially fictive
achieve that future” (p. 8). Public relations elements (advertisements, websites, point-of-
and the other disciplines lumped together sale material, packaging copy). In essence,
under the broad corporate label of sociologists study life as it is organised, while
‘marketing’, all provide tools for public relations practitioners play a role in
organisations to create its case for legitimacy organising life for stakeholders.
with its stakeholders. The underlying framework for this study is
Using Starbucks as a case study in symbolic interactionism, a theory that grew out
exploring a corporation’s power relationship of late nineteenth and early twentieth century
with its various audiences demonstrates why work by philosophers and sociologists such as
publics are willing to hand over power to William James, John Dewey, and George H.
entities by engaging with a new theoretical Mead. Mead (1863-1931) is considered the
construct – radical sociodrama. Investigating father of symbolic interactionism (Athens,
the corporation’s use of language and 2007, p. 137) and a towering figure in the
symbols to create a unique cultural Chicago School that grew out of the work of
community reveals how Starbucks wields theorists based at the University of Chicago.
power to achieve its financial aims. Radical Denzin (1992) explains that interactionist
sociodrama is formulated from the pioneering thinkers “believe in the contingency of self and
work of Mickey (sociodrama)(1995, 2008) society and conceive of social reality from the
and Athens (radical interactionism) (2002, vantage point of change and transformations”
2007, 2009, 2010). (p. 2). Growing out of pragmatism, symbolic
Combining the work of Mickey and interactionism explores how people create
Athens, derived from public relations and meaning for themselves and the broader society
sociology, enables the articulation of a new through a system of constant negotiation,
theory that advances our understanding of modification, and re-assemblage as they
power and public relations by demonstrating interact with others. In other words, people
how organisations use language and symbols actively create meanings for themselves and
to exert domination in the exchange with society through dealings with others.
consumers and stakeholders. This research ‘Reality’ in symbolic interactionism terms is
provides an exploratory examination an ever-changing terrain based on new criteria
regarding how scholars might employ radical and experiences bombarding the individual
sociodrama to organisational communications through additional interaction. According to
to determine how corporations and other Mills (1963):
institutions employ power and dominance in The first rule for understanding the
interactions with stakeholders. human condition is that men live in a
second-hand world. The consciousness
Theoretical rationale of men does not determine their
Using sociology and symbolic interactionism existence; nor does their existence
to study public relations determine their consciousness. Between
Much of the sociologist’s goal – studying the human consciousness and material
organised life and society – intersects with the existence stand communications and
public relations practitioner’s task in creating designs, patterns and values which
organisational stories and narratives (Bentele
3
Batchelor, B. & Krister, K. (2012). Starbucks: A case study examining power and culture via radical
sociodrama. PRism 9(2): http://www.prismjournal.org/homepage.htmlinfluence decisively such communication and interactions taking place
consciousness as they have. (p. 375) between corporations and audiences creates the
For scholar Charon (2004), interactionism identity of the organisation. Communicators
provides a worldview of a human being as an play an important role in shaping the identity of
active individual, thinking, creating, self- an organisation through social interaction. For
directing, and defining oneself internally and example, if practitioners want the public to
through exchanges with other people and identify a hospital as the best hospital in the
episodes that take place. Thus, it is essential area, then the speech and actions of the hospital
for symbolic interactionism to include both board of directors, doctors, and staff need to
perspective on how people interrelate and emulate that identity. It is through the
how an individual creates his or her own interactions of the hospital staff with the
reality (p. 26-34). audiences that the hospital’s identity is shaped.
Swingewood (1991) points to Mead’s Interactions can take place face-to-face, through
thinking about the ‘I/Me’ dichotomy, which social media, or traditional media.
enables people to create meaning for Sociodrama
themselves and the broader world through the Duncan (1985) developed a symbol-based
interpretation of common symbols: theory derived from symbolic interactionism,
called sociodrama (Mickey, 2008, p. 125).
The self is thus individual only
Mickey (1995) employed sociodrama as a
through its reciprocal relations with
means to help public relations practitioners
others and with the community. The
better understand how language helps publics
self is both a subject and an object, the
relate to an organisation and to identify with the
‘I’ as the subject which thinks and
organisation in a common drama. The focus on
acts, the ‘Me’ as the individual’s
language enables sociodrama to be studied
awareness of self as an object in the
from a cultural perspective. Mickey (1995)
world existing for others. (p. 266)
explains, “We interact with one another through
Charon (2004) argues, “Almost all social symbol. It is the symbol, mostly language, to
interaction is symbolic; thus we get to the which we give meaning. In the process we
meaning of ‘symbolic interactionism’: the become part of a social order greater than
study of human beings interacting ourselves (a family, a community, an
symbolically with one another and with organization)” (p. 9).
themselves, and in the process of that Using sociodrama as a theoretical lens,
symbolic interaction making decisions and Mickey hoped to transform public relations
directing their stream of action” (p. 151). from a one-way to a two-way transmission field
Every action that we perform has meaning to that values the input of an audience and uses
us. Observers of our actions will also find that input to craft future output (Mickey, 1995,
meaning in all our actions, although their p. 1). As a result, sociodrama may be viewed as
interpretations and meanings may differ from a more humanistic approach to theory, making
ours. it easier for practitioners to relate to and apply
Via symbolic interactionism, people create sociodrama to their communication efforts. The
meaning for and about themselves and the notion that both individuals and organisations
world around them. These identities are employ acting roles is easily comprehended in
important because they explain why people contemporary society, so heavily influenced by
do what they do, how and why they popular culture. Mickey (1995) explains,
communicate, and how people create “Social interaction is not a process, but a
impressions of one another (Charon, 2004, p. dramatic expression, an enactment of roles by
160). individuals who seek to identify with each other
From a business perspective, symbolic in their search for social order” (p. 35).
interactionism demonstrates that all
4
Batchelor, B. & Krister, K. (2012). Starbucks: A case study examining power and culture via radical
sociodrama. PRism 9(2): http://www.prismjournal.org/homepage.htmlRadical interactionism work, such as press releases, strategic plans,
Athens derived the theory radical quarterly earnings reports, and other channels
interactionism from the pioneering work of that may be grouped under the encompassing
Mead because he deduced that symbolic ‘marketing’ umbrella in most large
interaction fell short in explaining the central organisations.
role power and dominance play in social acts Radical sociodrama, then, is a tool for
(Athens, 2009). The theory reveals that power examining communications that privileges
and dominance are always prevalent, even in power and domination as enacted by
the most democratic societies and institutions. superordinate and subordinate factions engaged
Athens (2002, 2007 & 2009) demonstrates in complex social actions. Rather than
that power and domination play a central role obfuscate or deny that power and domination
in human communities, whether person-to- are at the heart of communications, which leads
person or person-to-organisation. Domination to difficult discussions regarding ethics,
is the “construction of complex social actions persuasion, rhetoric, and manipulation that the
through some participants in the social act public relations field typically shies away from,
performing superordinate roles, other radical sociodrama identifies these factors as
participants performing subordinate roles, and paramount in understanding how organisations
everyone assuming the attitudes of ‘others’” communicate. Domination, according to Athens
(Athens, 2007, p. 141). As this statement (2010), “tints to one degree or another all our
attests, the role each player assumes is social acts and, thereby, pervades every corner
critical, but they are not necessarily static. of our social existence” (p. 351).
In the cyclical nature of the social action, a The authors use deconstruction to develop
party that is superordinate may also take a the theory of radical sociodrama. Mickey
subordinate role and vice-versa depending on (2003) argues that this critical lens provides
the given action. Athens (2009) explains that scholars with a method of getting at deeply held
humans only accept domination under certain meanings, explaining, “Deconstructing means
conditions: “the question is not whether we to see ideas that rest under the surface of the
wish to be dominated, but only under what material we have produced – to peel away the
conditions – how, when, where, and from layers that are in front of us but often hidden
whom – we are willing to accept it” (p. 407). until we look” (p. 1).
In defining ‘domination’, it is important from Sociodrama demonstrates the importance of
a radical interactionism perspective to language, however without the addition of
understand that this does not have to be radical interactionism it is impossible to explain
physical dominance or necessarily a negative how powerful that language is based on the
connotation of the word. Domination occurs superordinate or subordinate role of the
when “an individual or group participating in communicator. Via deconstruction and the
a social act steers the direction of its combination of the two critical theories, radical
development, according to their particular sociodrama serves as an effective tool in
preferences” (Athens, 2010, p. 341). analysing the role power plays in public
relations transactions.
Method: Developing radical sociodrama Public relations, according to Mickey
Radical sociodrama extends our (2003), “exists only in practice, in what social
understanding of sociodrama and radical actors do, in what has become a way to do
interactionism by placing power relations at public relations. All practices in the culture are
the heart of societal interactions, particularly constructions of language and symbol, and thus
between organisations and publics focusing are representations of power” (p. 6).
on language, signs, and symbols. Power and Deconstruction then becomes a practical tool
domination are central facets of radical for both public relations scholars and
sociodrama, demonstrating how a corporation professionals because it perpetually forces them
exerts influence via typical public relations to examine the words and materials of social
5
Batchelor, B. & Krister, K. (2012). Starbucks: A case study examining power and culture via radical
sociodrama. PRism 9(2): http://www.prismjournal.org/homepage.htmlactors, to determine the type of power and language, built on the shared aspirations of
relationships being established. its customers, who come to view the store and
The authors next used deconstruction and its meanings as a way of life. The Starbucks’
single case study research to examine a lifestyle helps patrons not only understand
sample of Starbucks’ promotional materials. themselves, but also become a version of
In particular, the researchers investigated the themselves through the symbols, ideas, and
assumed meanings contained in Starbucks’ ideologies that the corporation values. Ruzich
annual reports and the bestselling (2008) explains, “Starbucks’ attempts to
memoir/corporate histories written by recreate the social experiences and communal
Starbucks’ chief executive officer Howard rituals of Italian cafes and British pubs have
Schultz. been aided by company language designed to
A single case study design allows the foster feelings of belonging and connection” (p.
researcher to undertake a deep exploration of 436).
a phenomenon with limited breadth, while a Schultz (2011), the mastermind behind the
multiple case study approach produces a more creation and legacy of the Starbucks culture, is
diluted analysis, but allows the researcher to direct in attributing the company’s culture to
highlight themes across the cases, create a list love, saying, “There is a word that comes to my
of lessons learned, and compare and contrast mind when I think about our company and our
the cases (Daymon & Holloway, 2011, p. people. That word is ‘love’. I love Starbucks
119). Since the aim of this article is to because everything we’ve tried to do is steeped
determine the role that language and power in humanity” (p. 4). Schultz’s writing actively
played in the success of Starbucks’ and purposely created a brand and company
transactions with consumers, the authors narrative that he felt would attract customers:
pursued a single case study. The research “We take something ordinary and infuse it with
focuses on analysing material produced by a emotion and meaning, and then we tell its story
single corporation, to illustrate the tight link over and over and over again, often without
between Starbucks and radical sociodrama. saying a word” (Schultz, 2011, p. 12).
The limitations of this approach centre on Creating a common drama
the relatively few aspects of the corporation’s What one finds in Starbucks stores in the U.S.
public relations and marketing total output the and worldwide is a template, or sameness, that
authors studied. Future research undertaken many customers find comforting. From the
regarding Starbucks and other organisations familiar logo to the dark wood interiors and
could strengthen the theoretical foundation of constant smell of coffee beans, Starbucks
radical sociodrama by examining marketing provides reassurance to coffee drinkers
materials in greater depth. These materials regardless of location, perhaps even a bit of
could include: product packaging, press home as they travel. Schultz (2011) describes
releases, strategic plans, and website content, this feeling as “the Starbucks Experience –
among other forms of marketing materials. [based on] personal connection – is an
By analysing a broader range of affordable necessity. We are all hungry for
communications data, researchers examining community” (p. 13). The importance is built
Starbucks or another organisation will around connecting with others and
establish more persuasive argument for the reconnecting, according to Schultz, with
usefulness of radical sociodrama. oneself (p. 13).
Whether one views Starbucks as a crafty
Creating a Starbucks culture corporate power manipulating customers’
Starbucks artfully and purposely develops and attitudes to sell coffee or a valuable community
maintains an organisational culture with resource, the creation of an environment that
which customers and stakeholders identify. In represents shared visions is a hallmark of the
essence, Starbucks created its own company’s communication success. Mickey
community, driven and expressed by symbols (1995) explains, “Communication, and public
6
Batchelor, B. & Krister, K. (2012). Starbucks: A case study examining power and culture via radical
sociodrama. PRism 9(2): http://www.prismjournal.org/homepage.htmlrelations specifically, does not involve giving ‘signals’ to or ‘stimulates’ another, but also
someone a message, but instead identifies arouses in the self the same meaning it does in
with others in a common drama” (p. 40). others” (p. 44). Through language, people relate
‘Drama’ implies that the corporation uses to and understand one another. Charon (2004)
theatrical or expressive forms to communicate explained that human begins are socialised
with stakeholders. In contemporary society, through symbols; it is through these symbols
the public relations efforts cannot seem one- that individuals learn to share the same values,
way, so Starbucks also provides avenues for ideas, and rules of the society (p. 62). Thus,
consumers to engage, whether as one of 31 language is the vehicle for social interaction,
million Facebook fans, or via the ‘My and in one’s everyday conversations he or she
Starbucks Idea’ page on its corporate website, uses symbols to present drama to peers.
which enables the public to suggest ways to The goal for public relations practitioners is
improve products, services, or new ways to to use the language of their target audience, so
engage with the community. the audience will be able to identify with them
By interacting with the public, Starbucks and allow for the interaction to take place. The
temporarily hands over its superordinate role, language a public relations professional utilises
but does so in an agreeable way for all also helps to determine the organisation’s place
parties. Additionally, by allowing consumers within the social order of society. Practitioners,
to feel engaged with corporate representatives therefore, should engage with publics via
over multiple channels, Starbucks learns language that mirrors society’s values, rules,
valuable information for future efforts at and ideas.
creating common dramas. What baffles many observers is how
Corporations create messages with a goal Starbucks straddles a fuzzy line between the
in mind – to inform, persuade, or motivate fact that it is a global business enterprise and
audiences to consider the message and then simultaneously a site that people equate with
perform some action or change attitude. Thus, community, philanthropy, and social
messages must contain the elements of drama consciousness. In comparison, any number of
(act, actor, scene, means, and purpose) to corporations have attempted to do the same and
achieve the desired outcome. Mickey (2008) largely failed, including Wal-Mart, Nike, and
emphasises that those behind the scenes McDonald’s. Ruzich (2008) analyses the
(message producers) should be considered, as dichotomy:
well as those on the stage and outside the Starbucks’ challenge lies in the
theatre (p. 130). A powerful message with all balancing of two contradictory
the dramatic elements in place will reach the identities: it wants to become an ever-
target audience and lead to them being expanding multinational corporation
persuaded, informed, motivated, and willing and retain the image of a friendly small
to share their excitement with others. business. The company’s in-store
language can be viewed as a rhetorical
Starbucks’ use of signs and symbols solution to the dilemma, an attempt to
According to Mickey (1995), professional sustain the myth of the non-commercial
communicators are “dealing with human coffee house, denying consumerism
beings who think, feel, and interact through while creating visions of community
symbols (primarily language) in order to and connection. (p. 438)
achieve their personal and common goals” (p. Dominance
3). It is through everyday conversations that The first sentence of the Starbucks website
people relate to their peers. It is through page ‘Our Heritage’ reads: “Every day, we go
language that they explain themselves, justify, to work hoping to do two things: share great
persuade, motivate, and inform. coffee with our friends and help make the
Duncan (1968) wrote, “By ‘significant world a little better” (n.d.). Although one might
symbol’ we mean a symbol which not only scoff at how a fast food coffee shop could
7
Batchelor, B. & Krister, K. (2012). Starbucks: A case study examining power and culture via radical
sociodrama. PRism 9(2): http://www.prismjournal.org/homepage.htmlactually enact this hope, like the company’s superordinate provider of the American Dream,
mission statement, it speaks to the culture a lifestyle that people still desperately hope to
Starbucks has created. The accompanying achieve, despite the constant challenges
picture provides a counter-level view of the associated with global warfare and economic
Starbucks logo with the words ‘Espresso’ and collapse. Consumers begin to associate
‘Cappuccino’ in neon. Starbucks with the American ideal, and in order
Looking closer at this single line, however, to fill the emptiness they consume a product
one sees how Starbucks employs language in that they feel is the epitome of the ideal
establishing a power position in relation to its American lifestyle.
customers, employees, and stakeholders by This example can be carried out even
simultaneously aspiring to great heights, but further. Because Starbucks has been able to
using words that speak to common dreams. create a utopia for American consumers it has
Ultimately, breaking the sentence into smaller also afforded itself the ability to make
parts reveals its power and demonstrates the assumptions about its consumers. Essentially,
corporation’s success in building a brand Starbucks has become aware of consumers’
around language. willingness to carry out subordinate roles.
Immediately, the narrative begins with Athens (2002) explains:
“we,” rather than “Starbucks” or something More specifically, they merely become
generic such as “our employees”. This aware of each other’s readiness to carry
language draws the reader into a common out their respective superordinate or
bond with the unnamed corporate entity or subordinate roles in the prospective
person speaking these lines. In addition, the social act in which they are jointly
statement hinges on the commitment of participating. Moreover, through
“every day” and “work”. Americans pride people’s assumptions of each other’s
themselves on hard work and dedication that attitudes, those who will perform the
leads to fulfilment of the American Dream. subordinate roles can anticipate the
Furthermore, rather than “sell” or “offer” separate line of actions of those who
coffee to its customers, the narrative explains will perform the superordinate ones, and
that the company “hopes” to “share great vice versa, in the joint act. (p. 36)
coffee with our friends”. Again, this use of Athens (2002) argues that consumers are
language, along with a sharp photograph in willing accept their subordinate roles because
deep browns, speaks to ideas that resonate the benefits that Starbucks provides them is
with consumers. There is no ‘hard sell’ taking worth the relinquishment of power and
place at this website. Instead, the reader is dominance. He argues:
treated to a narrative written as if the
corporation is a dear friend. Rather than On the one hand, if the people who want
aspirational, the language employed is to perform the superordinate roles in the
personal, comrade-to-comrade. social act display superior attitudes
The next part of the sentence elevates the toward those who are to perform the
goal to making the world a better place. subordinate roles, and those who are to
While on one hand lofty, this phrasing perform the subordinate roles exhibit
appeals to many readers who pride subservient attitudes back towards those
themselves on perseverance. The national call who want to perform the superordinate
for Americans to make the nation and the ones, then they have formed a
world a better place is invoked. As a result, compatible plan of action for its
this clarion call enables Starbucks to use construction. (p. 35)
utopian language that speaks to the Simply, Starbucks has created the ultimate
aspirational mind-set of readers. producer-consumer relationship. Both
Starbucks is successful here because it Starbucks and its consumers know and accept
uses language to position itself as a their roles.
8
Batchelor, B. & Krister, K. (2012). Starbucks: A case study examining power and culture via radical
sociodrama. PRism 9(2): http://www.prismjournal.org/homepage.htmlConclusion bestow, the rights we claim, and the wrongs we
do. Power means finding the most effective
As a result of this research it is clear that
leverage for particular relations” (p 3).
Starbucks has achieved financial success for
Corporations use power to leverage
two reasons. First, the company excels at
relationships with consumers. Language and
building relationships with customers and
symbols provide corporations with the ability to
other stakeholders through language and
convince subordinates (consumers) to tolerate
symbols. Second, Starbucks uses language
their evils and grant them privileges and rights
and symbols to exercise power. The
to do the things they do. Thus, power is key to
development of radical sociodrama advances
corporations achieving financial success.
our understanding of power in public
It is important to note that dominance
relations by demonstrating how corporations
typically has a negative connotation. However,
use language and symbols to exert
as Athens (2002, 2009) points out, dominance,
domination in exchange with consumers and
in social acts, is as assured as death and taxes,
stakeholders. While research reveals that
and all complex social acts cannot be
‘power’ is often a problem for public relations
completed without the element of dominance.
practitioners, Smudde and Courtright (2007)
Similarly Clegg et al. (2006) observe, “Power is
conclude, “The power of public relations is
to organization as oxygen is to breathing” (p.
rhetorical, as it relies on the skillfulness of
3). Thus, this research aims to shed light on
people, as corporate symbolic actors, to
complex social acts that take place between
inspire cooperation between an organization
corporations and consumers. It also explains
and its publics” (p. 267). From this
why consumers willingly accept subordinate
perspective, the creation of a distinct culture
roles in consumer culture. Most importantly,
built around the Starbucks brand provides an
the research helps to justify why, how, when,
innovative way to look at organisational
where, and from whom consumers accept and
power.
essentially support the dominance imposed on
Mickey explains, “The primary idea is that
them by organisations.
language that we use in public relations
Starbucks uses symbols and language to
constructs and reflects our relationship with
create a community based on aspirations.
the client. So that it is not an accidental
Consumers yearn to live a Starbucks lifestyle,
language, it is very carefully crafted in order
so they voluntarily adopt the language and
to construct and define a relationship”
actively participate in the drama that Starbucks
(personal communication, 11 November
creates. They desire to be a part of the
2010). Therefore, the key concept in
Starbucks culture and participate in the
sociodrama is that corporations create
company’s vision of the American Dream. The
relationships in discourse or in conversation
intense desire to be a member of the Starbucks
through language. It is through this language
community demonstrated by consumers defines
that corporations and consumers begin to
term ‘brand loyalty’. However, Ruzich (2008)
identify with one another and social order is
cautions, “Consumers who patronize the chain
created. However, in order for social order to
should examine the in-store language for what
exist, subordinate and superordinate roles
it is – an advertising campaign, which to be
must be fulfilled. Those who have less power
successful must have an element of truth, but
fulfil the subordinate roles and must succumb
which, like all advertising, should be
to the culture and language of those with
scrutinized and recognized as a high-stakes
more power, fulfilling the superordinate roles.
effort to manipulate, persuade, and sell” (p.
The key factors determining who fulfils
440).
what roles are power and dominance. Clegg,
Radical sociodrama advances our
Courpasson, and Phillips (2006) reason,
understanding of why consumers are willing to
“Power is ultimately about the choices we
look past this manipulation and persuasion and
make, the actions we take, the evils we
continue to purchase consumer goods produced
tolerate, the good we define, the privileges we
9
Batchelor, B. & Krister, K. (2012). Starbucks: A case study examining power and culture via radical
sociodrama. PRism 9(2): http://www.prismjournal.org/homepage.htmlby corporations. Starbucks provides a good Political and Social Science, 250
example of the conditions under which (Communication and Social Action), pp. 113-
consumers accept power and dominance. 120.
Consumers look past manipulation and Charon, J. M. (2004). Symbolic interactionism: An
persuasion if they relate to the language and
introduction, an interpretation, an integration
symbols the corporation employs. Radical (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
sociodrama views language like a mirror, it
Hall.
reflects who the consumers are and why they
are interested in connecting with a Clegg, S. R., Courpasson, D., & Phillips, N.
corporation. The more a corporation is able to (2006). Power and organizations. Cresskill, NJ:
reflect the consumer in the language it Hampton Press.
creates, the more willing consumers will be to Daymon, C., & Holloway, I. (2011). Qualitative
grant power and dominance back to the research methods in public relations and
organisation. marketing communications (2nd ed.). New
Radical sociodrama expands on radical York, NY: Routledge.
interactionism and sociodrama as a means to
examine how and why consumers are willing Denzin, N. K. (1992). Symbolic interactionism and
to be dominated by large corporations. cultural studies: The politics of interpretation.
Research on radical sociodrama is in its Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
infancy, but is developed at the intersection of Duncan, H. D. (1985). Communication and social
two sociological theories that help observers order. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
better understand how societies and
communities work. Future research on radical Duncan, H. D. (1968). Symbols in society. New
sociodrama has great promise as it is applied York: Oxford University Press.
to other industries and stakeholders. Heath, R. L. (2008). Power resource management:
Pushing buttons and building cases. In T. L
References Hansen-Horn & B. D. Neff (Eds.), Public
Athens, L. (2002). Domination: The blind spot relations: From theory to practice (pp. 2-19).
in Mead’s analysis of the social act. Journal Boston, MA: Pearson.
of Classical Sociology, 2(1), 25-42. Hedges, C. (2009). Empire of illusion: The end of
Athens, L. (2007). Radical interactionism: Going literacy and the triumph of spectacle. New
beyond Mead.* Journal for the Theory of York, NY: Nation Books.
Social Behaviour, 37(2), 137-165. Ihlen, O., van Ruler, B., and Fredriksson, M.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-5914.2007.00329.x (Eds.). (2009). Public relations and social
Athens, L. (2009). The roots of ‘radical theory: Key figures and concepts. New York,
interactionism’. Journal for the Theory of NY: Routledge.
Social Behaviour, 39(4), 387-414. Mickey, T. J. (1995). Sociodrama: An interpretive
doi:10.1111/j.1468-5914.2009.00413.x theory for the practice of public relations.
Athens, L. (2010). Human subordination from a Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
radical interactionist’s perspective. Journal Mickey, T. J. (2003). Deconstructing public
for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 40(3), relations: Public relations criticism. Mahwah,
339-368. doi:10.1111/j.1468- NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5914.2010.00435.x
Mickey T. J. (2008). Sociodrama for public
Bentele, G., & Wehmeier, S. (2007). Applying relations practice. In T. L Hansen-Horn & B. D.
sociology to public relations: A commentary. Neff (Eds.), Public relations: From theory to
Public Relations Review, 33(3), 294-300. practice (pp. 122-133). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Bernays, E. L. (1947). The engineering of
consent. Annals of the American Academy of
10
Batchelor, B. & Krister, K. (2012). Starbucks: A case study examining power and culture via radical
sociodrama. PRism 9(2): http://www.prismjournal.org/homepage.htmlMills, C. W. (1963). Power, politics and people: Author contact details:
The collected essays of C. Wright Mills. I.L.
Horowitz, (Ed.). New York, NY: Ballantine. Bob Batchelor
School of Journalism and Mass Communication
Ruzich, C. M. (2008). For the love of joe: The
Kent State University
language of Starbucks. The Journal of
301D Franklin Hall
Popular Culture, 41(3), 428-442.
Kent, OH 44242
doi:10.1111/jpcu.2008.41.issue-3
330-672-2571
Schultz, H., & Gordon, J. (2011). Onward: How Email: rpbatche@kent.edu
Starbucks fought for its life without losing its
soul. New York, NY: Wiley. Kaitlin Krister
Schultz, H., & Yang, D. J. (1997). Pour your School of Journalism and Mass Communication
heart into it: How Starbucks built a company Kent State University
one cup at a time. New York, NY: Hyperion. 201 Franklin Hall
Kent, OH 44242
Smudde, P. M. & Courtright, J. L. (2007). kkrister@kent.edu
Problems as opportunities – the power and
promise of public relations. In J.L. Courtright
& P.M. Smudde (Eds.), Power and public Copyright statement:
relations (pp. 267-273). Cresskill, NJ:
The authors of this article have elected, in
Hampton Press.
the interests of open dissemination of scholarly
Starbucks (n.d.). ‘Our Starbucks mission’. work, to provide this article to you in open
Retrieved from access format. This means that,
http://news.starbucks.com/about+starbucks/ in accordance with the principles of
Swingewood, A (1991). A short history of the Budapest Open Access Initiative
sociological thought (2nd ed.). New York, (http://www.soros.org/openaccess/), you may
NY: St. Martin’s. freely copy and redistribute this article
provided you correctly acknowledge its authors
and source, and do not alter its contents.
11
Batchelor, B. & Krister, K. (2012). Starbucks: A case study examining power and culture via radical
sociodrama. PRism 9(2): http://www.prismjournal.org/homepage.htmlYou can also read
