by Nell Plotts » Thu Feb 21, 2008 9:44 pm
It is my understanding that Starbucks brought back their former CEO because the board didn't like operating results. It stands to reason that after a period of time considering their options changes would be made. If you subscribe to SO notices you would have seen at least one of their vendors publish an advisory to the effect that SO menu changes would materially impacted sales.
I do not own Starbucks nor do I know anyone on the inside. I just pay attention to key management changes in firms in the PNW.
Absolutely this means that Starbucks headquarters headcount will be reduced. Did you really think that the corporate-wide training meeting was all about learning how to better prepare lattes?