In response to my recent post on the vulnerabilities of Starbucks, I received some interesting comments. Jim Gilmore, co-author (with Joe Pine) of The Experience Economy, countered my view that "creeping ubiquity" and new store growth undermines the specialness of the vaunted Starbucks experience. He noted that that the coffee house giant has made some conscious moves to customize its infrastructure.

As he puts it: "I actually think they have done such quite well, successfully forestalling the anti-ubiquity sentiment (which I agree exists out there) to a great degree: the eight Starbucks outlets within 2 miles of where I live are all different looking in terms of specific iconic fixturing, while maintaining the same brand identity. To me, it's amazing how much they saturate the terrain and see so few turn against 'em. And of course, some folks hated 'em even when they had but one-eighth the outlets."

Gilmore also disputed my argument that Starbucks' relative lack of customer knowledge (actually, I called it "ignorance") is a problem. "I, like many others, actually value the anonymity," writes Gilmore. "There are certain businesses that I don't want to know me -- and one of them is Starbucks. The private place serves as 'public' space. (I don't want to meet at local park -- say at nice picnic table and bench -- to meet friends, and have the park landscaping crew greet me by name.) Consider this: perhaps such anonymous treatment helps forestall anti-Starbucks sentiment. For if they were everywhere and they knew everyone, the big-brotherism might turn off even more folks."