How Starbucks Wields Language
A close reading of the coffee chain's anti-unionization website
A few weeks ago, Starbucks launched a website called We Are One Starbucks, made in response to unionization efforts sweeping across the coffee chain’s national branches. Since the first Starbucks branch in Buffalo, New York, declared its intent to form a union, over 100 locations have followed suit.1
The website is decidedly anti-union, using negative language to describe what could happen if Starbucks workers, who are called partners, vote “yes” to unionization. That’s not surprising—but what is interesting is that the site is written almost as if it were a letter to a friend. It opens with:
Partners, we have a 50-year history of working together with transparency and having open conversations with respect and honesty. It’s part of what makes Starbucks a different kind of company.
Today is no different. We know that some partners are considering unionizing and know that you may have questions about that. We do not believe unions are necessary at Starbucks because we know that the real issues are solved through our direct partnership with one another. And we believe every partner deserves to know the facts and to make their own decision.
Get the facts, do your research. The better informed we are, the better decisions we all make. Your vote is your voice.
I was struck by the almost cozy tone that this piece of writing takes, achieved in part through its intimate use of first- and second-person language. (First-person language is what you use to describe yourself, or yourself in relation to others—“me,” “us,” and “we”—while second-person language directly addresses the reader: “you,” “yours, and “yourself.” In literature, the first-person allows a character to tell the story from their own point-of-view, while the second-person puts the reader in the role of the protagonist.)
In school, I was taught not to mix perspectives—if you start a story in the first person, the perspective should remain in the first person (unlike this sentence). But in advertising, mixing first- and second-person language is a common tool, although both modes have different goals and achieve different outcomes. I wanted to use this lens to examine the Starbucks website because it is, at its core, propaganda. It is not meant to be objective or to deliver impartial information, but it’s doing a damn good job trying to convince the reader otherwise.
First-Person Language
On the Starbucks website, first-person language is used in an attempt to humanize the business. Companies do this all the time—they use “we” or “us” to sound friendly and personable, or to make the reader or viewer believe they’re having a conversation with a real person. Think: “We at X business,” or “Our values at Y company.” Essentially, these statements ascribe human characteristics to inanimate organizations.
Oddly enough, this reminded me of a recurring segment Stephen Colbert did during “The Colbert Report,” a satirical show he hosted on Comedy Central from 2005–2014 before becoming the host of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled on Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission; in a 5-4 decision, the justices handed down a win to Citizens United, a decision that removed restrictions on how much money corporations could donate to campaigns.
Colbert would not shut up about this decision—and for good reason. Citizens United, as it is often called, gave corporations the power to influence elections by donating massive amounts of money to candidates that would serve their interests, rather than the interests of real people. Colbert, embodying the character of a conservative political talk-show host, had a long-running gag about how this decision affirmed what he always knew: Corporations are people.
It might seem harmless for corporations to refer to themselves in the first-person, but the reason Colbert called so much attention to Citizens United was that this single court case exponentially expanded the power and influence of corporate interests. “While wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups have long had an outsized influence in elections, that sway has dramatically expanded since the Citizens United decision, with negative repercussions for American democracy and the fight against political corruption,” notes The Brennan Center, a nonpartisan law and policy institute.
It’s no coincidence that language patterns mimic our political realities. Corporations are not people, but the use of first-person language successfully ascribes the struggles of real people onto non-living entities. This isn’t a new tactic—almost everyone has likely worked for a restaurant or business or store that employs this rhetoric.
It’s one reason why using phrases like “we’re a family” to describe workplace dynamics annoys the shit out of me: It’s first-person language designed to manipulate a non-fixed group of people (the “members” of the family aren’t what’s important, especially in places with high turnover) to view a workplace as an entity deserving of loyalty, selflessness, and flexibility.
Most of the literature I read about first-person language talked about how it can be used as a storytelling tool, but on its own it can alienate the reader. This is where the second-person comes in.
Second-Person Language
Using the second-person voice in advertising is a well-established technique. Examples are everywhere: When a brand wants to prompt you to sign up for a new product, they’re much more likely to say “Start YOUR free trial” instead of “Start A free trial.” GEICO (“15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance”), Burger King (“Have it your way”), and L’Oreal (“Because you’re worth it”) have all run iconic campaigns that successfully utilized second-person language, urging the reader or viewer to take action—action which benefits the brand and encourages consumption.
Research shows that second-person language enhances a person’s connection to a brand. One study that looked at second-person language in translated texts noted that: “When directly addressed, audiences are not passive agents in comprehending advertising texts. Instead, they will make up for what is not openly said, process the information and actively participate in the communication. The process of being involved deepens audiences’ impression and makes them remember the message better, because they have put some efforts in working out the implications.”
Another study on second-person language in online brand messaging found that, ironically, “the presence (vs. absence) of second-person pronouns in online brand messaging enhances involvement and brand attitude for consumers that are lower, but not higher, in collectivism.” Words like “you” and “yours” can enhance the feeling of being part of a collective, which is a strategy Starbucks is using to actively fight against the real collectivism of unionization.
On Starbucks’ “We Are One” page, the words “you” and “your” are used a combined 46 times, out of 1,125 words altogether. I don’t think this is an accident. Instead, this rhetoric prompts the reader to take a specific action—in this case, to vote no on unionization—but is disguising its intentions by shifting its focus to the reader themselves. This isn’t about what Starbucks wants, the site suggests—it’s about “empowering” its partners to make their own “informed” decisions. There’s as much being said in the text as there is between the lines, and coaxing the reader to “do your own research” is about making them feel like they’ve made a decision all on their own. In fact, they’ve been carefully led there by dishonest language.
None of this is new, of course. Starbucks isn’t doing anything that hasn’t been done by advertisers and brand agencies for decades. But as a reader, I think it’s worth thinking about not just what you’re being told, but how you’re being given information.
The Starbucks union will always be more of a “we” than any business or corporation. Keep supporting their efforts by following them on Instagram—and always remember that corporations are not people, no matter what Stephen Colbert tells you.
Photo by kevin laminto on Unsplash
Hold up! You made it to the bottom of this article! Thank you so much for reading! If you could do any or all of the following things, that’d be incredibly helpful!
Click the ‘heart’ at the bottom to say you liked this article!
Consider checking out my Patreon!
Share this with a friend, on your social media, anywhere! Here’s a button for you to do so!
As of February 28, 2022, which is the most recent date I could find data on this.