Thursday, September 27, 2012

For Whom the Bell Tolls

Why should not this experience economics be called as nothing but a marketing gimmick?

Possible examples includes Disneyland and of course Starbucks!

I do not know anything about Disneyland but I do know something about Starbucks.

Yeah, Starbucks does provide good experience and Starbucks is Starbucks.

Didn't the Starbucks suffer during recession? Didn't they try to behave like Mcdonalds by selling starbucks in Subway?

Doesn't the decline in the growth during recession convey the success and sustenance of the experience economy depend on the disposable income of the individuals?

Recession or no recession, werent there other players in other segments who were relatively successful?

More over, doesn't the soceity will always contain the rich and the poor masses? How much of the population can really afford starbucks?

What percentage of the population can really afford to pay for the experience?

If only a relatively small percentage of population can indulge or afford in experience goods, then why should it be so relevant?

This post is not just due to craving for a good coffee or my inability to afford Starbucks right now. [Having a Starbucks right across the college doesn't helps]

If you had the patience to read about Experience economy and what i have written why not check out is Information economy reaching its overload as well as say hello to Feedback economy

1 comment:

Ramesh said...

Aha - I see that you have plunged headlong into B school - reading stuff like this :)

You really mean Starbucks is a good experience - I think its precisely the opposite. Have never found an empty chair and a nice table in any Starbucks ....