How lemmings draft a menu

Listen: That crunch you hear is the sound of quick-service chains squashing their points of differentiation. Instead of learning from the tragic blunder of casual dining, players one click down the service spectrum are just as avidly turning their menus into clones of the competition’s line-up. If they haven’t already copycatted McDonald’s Snack Wrap, vis-à-vis Wendy’s, Sonic, and KFC, it’s only because smoothies, premium coffees and espresso-based drinks are higher on their To Develop list. And that’s after deciding how to join the discounting binge.

In the currrent environment, you can readily understand why a chain copies a sure-fire hit for someone else. But it clearly speaks to a dearth of cleverness and creativity within the sector. Instead of analyzing why a certain product appeals to consumers and then crafting an alternative that sates the same desire, even contenders with considerable marketing knowhow are merely giving a twist to what’s already selling well.

The follow-alongs are not only betting that lightning will strike twice, but leaving themselves vulnerable to the upstart that hatches a true New Idea. If a newcomer hits on the next Bloomin’ Onion, fajita, Blizzard, chicken nuggets or smoothie, the old guard is cemented into the role of hawking commodities. How much pressure on prices can a concept take when costs are squeezing margins from the other direction?

The copycats would be better served by staying attuned to what makes their concept unique and then nudging their menus in the direction in which public tastes are moving. Leapfrogging to a far afield idea just because it worked for another player is like trying to make it as a rock star by covering last week’s hits.

A grande serving of what?

There had to be a secret message encoded in Howard Schultz’s presentation yesterday, because even Mike Tyson would know better than to pin Starbucks’ turnaround to rickety measures like adding a new coffee roast or installing a newfangled coffee maker. And let’s not forget the pledge to do more for the environment and the startup of a social-networking site. But maybe the real message of his address to shareholders was blurred by all the specifics. If you step back and view the elements as a package, it’s clear Schultz is taking a bold gamble. The one-time coffee-carafe salesman is trying to infuse the brand with more showbiz than the industry has seen since the heyday of eater-tainment.

Schultz described Starbucks’ purchase of a company that makes a new type of coffee brewer, a device called the Clover, as the most dramatic of the steps he and other execs detailed for investors. The machine supposedly makes a cup of coffee superior enough to justify a price of more than $2.50. Schultz said he saw it being used by a place in New York that charged $7 a cup. But how it generates the nectar of the bean may be as important as the quality of finished brew. Starbucks described the machine as a cross between a French press pot and a vacuum-style coffee maker, which provides a bit of a show with every cupful that’s produced.

Similarly, Starbucks disclosed that it’s rolling out a new espresso maker that gives the baristas more control over the coarseness of the coffee grind and the way the milk is steamed. Not coincidentally, the devices are not as high as the machines currently being used, which will allow patrons to see their drinks being made, and possibly even interact with the coffee maker.

Even the new frequent-guest program has some dazzle to it. Guests present their cards to be wowed a little by the service they’re then given. The benefits rendered don’t sound that amazing. Free half-and-half or soy milk? Whoa. But the give-and-take about the freebies does give the counter servers and baristas a chance to strut their stuff a little.

The bland-sounding moves that Schultz disclosed yesterday may prove anything but. It’s a bit of razzle-dazzle from someone who could prove to be a very adept ringmaster.

The night Starbucks went cold

At 5:31, a manager escorted two customers to the door, apparently explaining why the Starbucks would be closing. As she was saying good-bye, two more people tried to squeeze past her into the café for their after-work caffeine fix. They, too, apparently hadn’t heard that all 7,100 Starbucks in the United States would be closing yesterday evening for what the media alternated between calling a massive teach-in and a chainwide coffee break.

But before the unit on 57th St. in New York could move to a refresher on how to make a killer cup of coffee, the staff had to fend off customers first. The manager had locked the door and taped a cardboard sign to the window, explaining that the store was closed. But every time employees would open the door to lug a back of trash to the curb, a few more patrons would blithely push through the door, oblivious to the sign and the historic shutdown of the whole chain. Each time they’d be shepherded out by the manager, who seemed as cheerful as a 7-year-old at her birthday party.

Of course, those patrons could have satisfied their caffeine craving for a mere 99 cents by trekking just a few blocks. In an absolutely brilliant stroke of guerilla marketing, Dunkin’ Donuts cut the price of its espresso-based drinks for the afternoon and night to under a buck. Sure, the doughnut specialist might’ve snagged a few Starbucks aficionados who presumably could switch allegiance. But the real benefit was the publicity. Starbucks’ three-hour closure drew a ton of coverage in every sort of media imaginable. By tying into that event in a sly way, Dunkin’ made sure that its name was in the second paragraph, if not higher. Starbucks took the sales hit and snagged its share of hoopla. But Dunkin’ was right there with it.

One more accolade to bestow on the matter: The Chicagoist website, for coming up with the headline, All Starbucks Closing Tonight for 3 Hours, Apocalypse Imminent.