Most data points suggest that trouble is brewing at Starbucks. Whether you look at earnings reports, comparable store sales, barista sentiment, or brand equity, they all indicate an erosion of enterprise value. The latest evidence came last week when Starbucks announced plans to lay off 1,100 corporate employees and cut 30% of its menu items. It’s a drastic move aimed at delivering immediate results, boldly led by recently appointed CEO Brian Niccol, who faces the daunting challenge of reviving Starbucks’ fortunes.

Since taking the helm in September 2024, replacing Laxman Narasimhan, Niccol has seemingly sought a “quick fix” through new marketing initiatives. Under the rallying cry of “Back to Starbucks,” the company is trying to rekindle customer love through a more personalized experience — bringing back handwritten Sharpie names and sentimental messages on cups. Starbucks is also launching marketing promotions like “Starbucks Monday” and rolling out fresh advertising campaigns, including “My Name” and “Hello Again.”

All very impressive.

But before we applaud Starbucks' marketing efforts, a critical question arises: is the company solving the right problem? Starbucks seems fixated on the notion that it has a brand problem — working hard to get consumers to fall back in love with its iconic coffeehouse. This explains the focus on customer experience, product innovation, and marketing ROI.

However, I’d argue that Starbucks has a reputation problem, not just a brand problem. And the company is only addressing part of what’s holding it back.

A brand is an expression of an organization's vision, values, and personality — it’s the promise a company intends to keep. Reputation, on the other hand, is how effectively that brand promise is being fulfilled in the eyes of stakeholders. When a company falls short, reputation suffers due to the gap between promise and perception.

Reputation is inherently emotional — it’s a publicly developed judgment formed by trust, admiration, and respect. For more than 20 years, the RepTrak model has measured corporate reputation, providing a data-driven assessment of how companies are perceived. What RepTrak and other data indicate is that while Starbucks’ brand perception remains relatively strong, its overall reputation has declined to a vulnerable state.

What does this mean for Starbucks?

Starbucks’ marketing efforts may attract and nurture customers, but they will only partially impact reputation. That’s because reputation isn’t just an isolated brand impression — marketing alone won’t fix how consumers fundamentally feel about the company. A weakened reputation undermines trust, advocacy, and enterprise value. As reputation declines, so does business performance.

What should Starbucks do?

Starbucks needs a reputation reset — placing corporate communications ahead of further paid media investments. This means amplifying authentic company messaging and prioritizing owned and earned media channels. A reputation-first strategy could yield a more meaningful solution than simply increasing marketing spend.

Based on U.S. RepTrak data, Starbucks should consider the following strategic initiatives:

  1. Position Niccol as a strong, appealing leader
  2. Develop a first-to-market product innovation
  3. Demonstrate greater commitment to employee well-being
  4. Introduce an everyday value-for-money proposition

By executing these initiatives, Starbucks can restore its reputation and lay the foundation for future marketing success — but only if leadership shifts its perspective. Reputation management must come first, not as an afterthought.

That’s not a radical idea. But it could lead to radically better results.

Stephen Hahn-Griffiths is global executive VP of RepTrak, a Boston-based reputational management company.