You post a link about Starbucks closing restaurants in the USA 'funguspudding'. Dare I suggest that this is a truffle pessimistic. The chain is planning to close a net 400 stores out of 16000, a total of 2.5%. And most of those that are to be closed have been opened in the last three years. This isn't actually that many stores, as a percentage.
RBD operate 44 Starbucks stores across NZ. Last year they closed 3 stores, which represented 6.4% of the NZ total. So the cutbacks in NZ have already been far more drastic than those which are proposed in the US, in percentage terms. What is more EBITDA profitability improved from $3.6m to $3.8m in NZ, despite those store closures.
You could argue RBD are ahead of the overseas trend already. I don't believe your implied forecast of a further 'retreat' for Starbucks in NZ is justified.
I am not sold on RBD's involvement in Starbucks myself. That's because I believe that after corporate costs are taken into account, Starbucks in NZ is loss making and has been since FY2005. This isn't the fault of the Starbucks 'concept' as such. It is IMO a result of Starbucks being 'top heavy' in management in New Zealand, and the holding company carrying too much debt for the Starbucks sub concept to be profitable. I think RBD has already streamlined some KFC and Pizza Hut head office management. Perhaps they should do the same with Starbucks? Or perhaps Starbucks can not inherently generate sufficient profits to have a third party corporate (RBD) clipping the ticket on the way through?
I am bemused by the Starbucks strategy myself. In Christchurch the three central city stores are all within five minutes walking distance of each other. That surely must result in sales cannibalisation. Yet all three stores seems to have a steady trade of customers each time I pass them. And this is exactly the kind of store distribution that 'works' in large overseas cities, which have a Starbucks on each corner.
SNOOPY