By Maria Eduarda X. Soares and Heloísa Nogueira
For years, Starbucks represented an aspirational symbol of urban consumption. Stepping into one of the chain's coffee shops was, to some extent, less about the coffee and much more about performing modernity and globalization. Familiar details—such as the cup with a handwritten name, the "cool" atmosphere, and the carefully curated soundtrack—evoked a sense of connection to a global aesthetic, making the context its primary product.
This model worked exceptionally well for decades, becoming a massive hit among teenagers and young adults in the 2010s. While in the United States the brand marketed itself as a premiumyet accessible experience, for the Brazilian public, it Starbucks attained the status of an imported lifestyle experience.
However, in recent years, the Starbucks has faced a consistent decline in performance, both in the Brazilian market and in the U.S., where the brand had already established itself as a tradition rather than a trend.
In 2020 in Brazil, SouthRock, the brand's operator in the country, filed for judicial reorganization, revealing various financial weaknesses and an unsustainable model regarding costs, licensing, and operational chains.
In the United States, the company announced the closure of about 400 stores and the layoff of 900 employees as part of a $1 billion restructuring plan amidst competition and shifting consumer habits.
The official narrative often points to macroeconomic factors—such as inflation, input costs, and post-pandemic impacts—but overlooks a far more human aspect: Starbucks built its value on an aesthetic and identity that ceased to be exclusive, leading people to question the price they were paying for the experience.
This raises an inevitable question.
Starbucks in Brazil relied on an image of being hipster and cool. In the US, it relied on being "accessible premium."
But what happens when the coffee shop next door uses eco-friendly tote bags, serves matcha, features raw wood furniture, playlists with alternative music and functional options, and charges less? The brand's "unique selling point" becomes a familiar standard—one that is now avoided.
And the multinational completely ignored clear signs of changing consumer behavior.
Customers who once sought a “third place”—neither home nor work—now find it in small independent cafés, artisanal bakeries, or hybrid social spaces; this has fragmented the experience Starbucks once offered and, consequently, caused the company to lose its central position in the niche.
Furthermore, there is a stark generational shift: the new generation of consumers values local authenticity over global brands. In this context, Starbucks’ standardized, quiet messaging begins to feel artificial to those who want to project an image without appearing to be putting on an act.
From a business perspective, this highlights the classic challenge of growing without becoming predictable. Starbucks bet on standardization and rapid expansion—and it worked! But only as long as the market saw value in it. However, when the environment changes, the very structure that once drove success and efficiency begins to create rigidity.
Domestically, the situation was exacerbated by governance and operational model decisions, exposing the risks of importing off-the-shelf models without sufficient adaptation to local realities—especially in a country like Brazil, characterized by price-sensitive consumption and a fragmented competitive landscape.
Meanwhile, in the United States, store closures in urban areas reflect the fact that Starbucks—originally conceived as a space for lingering—was gradually pushed toward a high-turnover model focused on delivery and mobile orders. By optimizing these processes, the company reduced the time customers spent in-store, thereby eroding... silently ...part of the experience that justified its positioning as a premium coffee shop.
The paradox lies in the dilemma between efficiency and desire: in its attempt to cater to everyone, it ceased to be special to many.
Finally, Starbucks serves as a case study for companies that build value through their narrative rather than the product itself. Brands that rely on appearing modern, conscious, or alternative must be alert to the moment when that "appearance" is no longer exclusive to them.
This raises a question: how many companies remain tethered to an image that no longer sets them apart? How many continue to invest in a narrative the market has already moved past?
In a landscape where the “American way of life” ...is outdated; desire is shifting away from global brands and toward authenticity.
