FastCompany has an interesting article on McCafes. Good grief,
I never thought I'd write such a "word": McCafe (except maybe in
reference to an SNL skit on McCafes). But this is a video form the
Wall Street Journal (no, I'm not sure why they choose the
computer-generated voiceover for the piece). Moving on: "They will
fail and here is why" is the basic premise. I disagree. Some of the
points are valid, but I think the FastCompany article is thinking
about it wrong. Will McDonald's beat Starbucks? Maybe or maybe not.
That's not who will keep this rolling. There is a brief pass in the
final paragraph:
"McDonald's does have a fighting chance at selling
coffee if it can persuade existing customers -- ones who wouldn't
normally buy coffee while at Mickey D's -- to replace cheaper
[drinks] for [these] more expensive coffees as their meal-side
beverage."
I think more than a fighting chance: that's who this is about.
And, as the WSJ points out, there are several other drink options.
For McDonald's this isn't about getting money that would otherwise
be headed to Starbucks. It's about getting money that would
otherwise stay in the customer's pocket. A Venti McCafe costs more
than a large coffee. Will some people who might otherwise hit
Starbucks for "a coffee" stop by McDonald's first - because it is
closer? Sure. Will someone choose a McMocha will the McMuffin?
Definitely. If you hit the
link to the article, be sure to read the comments - some are
worth the time as well.