Recently, Howard Schultz has returned to the CEO job at Starbucks, and Meg Whitman is retiring as CEO of eBay. Both companies face similar trouble -- slowing growth. Mr. Schultz and John Donahoe (the incoming eBay CEO) pledge new initiatives to reignite their respective companies, but if you dig down, they are really just tinkering, not being truly innovative. They are sticking with the basic model that brought them to this point.
I wonder if the problems these firms face is more fundamental - something to do with market psychology rather than prices or seller ratings.
For all of it's trendiness, Starbucks can be a noisy, chaotic kind of place. Are there other places people would rather meet? For eBay, are buyers tired of the auction game? Would they rather just buy something from Craigslist where they know the price? The thrill of the "win" may be exhilarating, but losing is kind of depressing (and that happens more often).
Are people simply bored with the "experiences" at these two companies?
If I was in charge,
I'd make Starbucks quieter, and I'd bring coffee to my customers rather
than make them stand around and wait for it. I think that the noise of
the steaming milk (or whatever is making that racket back there) is
distracting. A lot of people hold business meetings at Starbucks, and
the noise gets in the way of communicating. Indeed, I'd actively promote Starbucks as a place to have meetings.
As
for bringing the coffee out, I think that shows that the customer is
king (or queen), and not the barista (or baristette), which is how it
seems now. I might also decentralize the milk/sugar station and put
little vessels on the tables.
I'd introduce free internet
rather than the T-Mobile stuff -- I can't imagine why I have to pay
north of $3 for a cup of coffee and then pay $10 a month for internet
service, too, when the Panera three stores down offers it for free (and
has decent coffee, too).
What sort of other innovations could restore their growth?