One of the most interesting recent
stories from a brand management point of view is the current furore regarding
tax avoidance. Three companies in particular have been singled out for
attention, Google, Amazon and Starbucks. Senior management from all three
companies last week had to face a very public grilling from the Public Accounts
Committee over the amount of tax they paid. To put some numbers behind this
Starbucks had UK sales of £398m but paid zero
corporation tax. Google had sales of £395m and paid £6m tax and Amazon had sales
of £3.3bn paying £1.8m tax.
You may well be shaking your coffee
cups right now but all of this is perfectly legal, via the loopholes in our tax
system. International companies can move profits around between territory bases.
For example Google’s European headquarters is based in the Republic of Ireland with its advertising team based
and so it pays its main tax requirements there.
This situation has highlighted a
real competitive advantage global companies have. Andy Street, managing director
of John Lewis stated in an interview last week regarding Amazon “There is less
money to invest if you are giving 27pc of your profits to the Exchequer,”
“Clearly, if you are domiciled in a tax haven you’ve got much more [money]. They
[Amazon] will out invest and ultimately out trade us. And that means there will
not be a tax base in the UK .” Strong stuff but all
true.
I have slightly more sympathy for
Starbucks and Amazon on this than I do Google. Amazon does employ over 2,250
people in the UK and uses
UK companies its fulfilment chain.
Likewise Starbucks employs more than 8,500 people in the UK and
plan to grow this by another 5,000 based on outlet launches. Google, with no
physical product, employs considerably less. But for me the most interesting
side of this once again is the impact on brand
positioning.
Compared with Google and Amazon,
Starbucks has positioned itself around being a fair community focussed business.
Starbucks has responded to all of this by posting defences to its actions to its
blog with posts by its UK MD, Its CFO and also Howard Schultz its worldwide
chairman, president and CEO.
If you look at the comments against
these statements many use the words “responsibility” and “community”, words used
in Starbucks own mission statement. It has used these as a core part of its
brand positioning and its customers in part have bought into this. Many of the
posts are from customers so upset by this perceived change in ethics that they
say they will not purchase again.
There is a big difference between a
few people upset enough to post comments on a blog to actually loosing
customers, and so sales, on a large scale but I suspect its brand image has been
tainted, probably more so than Google, because of its choice of brand
positioning. This is not a column about the rights and wrongs of this as you are
capable of making your own minds up. However if your brand and brand following
is based on certain ethics, the lesson is you better make sure your business
follows them from top to bottom in all areas. I look forward to seeing Starbuck
next brand marketing and PR activities with
interest.
Tim Youngman is head of digital
marketing for Archant follow him on twiiter
@timyoungman