coffee business strategies

Bloggingstocks.com makes the observation that Starbucks’ recent excuse for the departure of Launi Skinner seems a bit contrived. Okay, it’s actually total B.S. I made the same observation, but didn’t have time to write about it this week. Zac Bissonnette of Bloggingstocks.com says it better than I would have, anyway:

Can Starbucks come up with a believable excuse for management changes?

On Monday, Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX) issued a press release announcing that Launi Skinner had resigned as president of Starbucks Coffee U.S “to spend more time with her husband and two daughters.”

COO Martin Coles said that “We are very sorry to see Launi go, but we know that her legacy at Starbucks is strong and that we are a better company thanks to her passion, commitment and leadership.”

There’s just one problem: Ms. Skinner assumed the position in July of 2007. So essentially, we have to believe that this ambitious executive signed on to a hugely important position and then, eight months later, decided that she wanted to spend more time with her family. Is that even remotely believable?

Given the company’s well-publicized problems, it’s easy to understand why Starbucks made a change. Things got so ugly that Howard Schultz had assume the title of CEO again — after an eight-year retirement to the title of chairman. If Starbucks can’t just say “We decided it was time to make a change,” they at least need to come up with an excuse that’s more believable than “eight months after getting the job, she decided she wanted to be with her family more, and no, our poor results were not a factor.”

How dumb does Starbucks think its shareholders are?