delicious food and create a community for consumers.1.3 IssueThe disagreement stems from a contract signed when Kraft started distributing Starbucks packaged coffee through retailers in
TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS 🙘🙘🙘 REPORT Subject: Negotiation in Business Topic: NEW TRENDS IN F&B INDUSTRY MAKE CONTRACTS FAIL The case of Starbucks and Kraft LECTURE: Mr Tran Khanh CLASS: 702057, Friday 3rd shift Ho Chi Minh City, March 2023 GROUP MEMBERS AND EVALUATION Name Student Duty ID te Le Hoang 720I013 ● Chap Minh Chau ● Chap Nguyen Thuc 720I051 ● Preface Khanh Tran Tien Minh Pham Hoang Đang Khoa Evalua 100% 100% ● Chap2 720D0002 ● 1.3; 1.4; 1.5 100% 720D0172 ● 1.1; 1.2 100% TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents GROUP MEMBERS AND EVALUATION .1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF FIGURES EVALUATION OF LECTURER .5 PREFACE CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 F&B industry overview .7 1.2 Brief information about Starbuck and Kraft Company 1.2.1 Overview of Starbucks coffee brand 1.2.3 Overview of Kraft Company 10 1.2.4 Kraft Company Strategy 12 1.3 Issue 14 1.4 Timeline 16 1.5 Objective 16 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .17 2.1 The best choices in negotiation (BATNAs) .17 2.2 The worst choices in negotiation (WATNAs) 18 2.3 Distributive negotiation 18 CHAPTER 3: ANALYSIS 19 3.1 The case 19 3.2 Theory application .20 3.2.1 BATNAs 20 3.2.2 WATNAs 22 3.2.3 Distributive negotiation 22 3.3 Evaluation .23 3.3.1 The failure of make adaptable agreements for changing conditions 23 3.3.2 The failure to work towards an integrative negotiation 24 CHAPTER 4: SOLUTION .25 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION .27 REFERENCES 28 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: Top 10 Most valuable restaurant brands (Samantha Loveday, 2021) Figure 2: Number of Starbucks stores 1987-2017 (Brandsvietnam, 2019) Figure 3: Market share in emerging markets of Kraft (Brandsvietnam, 2014) 11 Figure 4: Timeline of Starbucks and Kraft 15 Figure 5: The relationship between each party’s BATNA 16 Document continues below Discover more from: Phương Pháp Nghiên Cứu Đại học Tôn Đức… 447 documents Go to course Thế hệ gen Z chịu áp lực so với… Phương Pháp… EVALUATION OF LECTURER 100% (9) ……………………………………………………………………………………… NHÓM - DỰ ÁN ……………………………………………………………………………………… KINH Doanh Mandy… ……………………………………………………………………………………… 59 Phương ……………………………………………………………………………………… 100% (9) Pháp… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… TRẮC- NghiệM-ĐSTT ……………………………………………………………………………………… Phương Pháp… 100% (7) 63 ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… Interpreting The Tide Rises the Tide Falls ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… Phương 100% (6) Pháp… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… Pa cnch - Phương án cứu hộ cứu nạn ……………………………………………………………………………………… 15 Phương ……………………………………………………………………………………… Pháp… 100% (4) ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… Nghiên cứu định ……………………………………………………………………………………… lượng KT_Việt… ……………………………………………………………………………………… 10 Phương Pháp… 100% (4) ……………………………………………………………………………………… PREFACE In the first place, to successfully complete the subject of Negotiation in Business and the final report "Contract Violation In F&B Industry", our team received a lot of help and facilitated advantages from Ton Duc Thang University In particular, we would like to express our sincere and profound gratitude to Mr Tran Khanh – our lecturer, who directly guided and accompanied our team throughout the process of completing this course and this report This is the reason and the motivation that we can get our research done Our report is based on the efforts of the team members (team 4) as well as the references, lessons learned from books, research works, and information from news sites Although we have tried our best in the implementation process, because of limited knowledge and a lack of practical experience, it is challenging to avoid shortcomings We hope to receive feedback and suggestions from teachers to be able to complete the essay most comprehensively Finally, we wish you all good health and success in your work We sincerely thank you! CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 F&B industry overview In general, the F&B industry is a business that sells food and drinks on the market The food and beverage business are also a significant component of the agriculture economy The food and beverage sector, in instance, may be divided into two major segments: production and distribution Manufacturing covers the manufacture and processing of finished meals and drinks, as well as the majority of packaged or prepared commodities Foods generated through farming or horticulture that are not further processed are not included in the produce category since they are just part of the agricultural business (Tam, 2020) In the food and beverage sector, distribution entails delivering the product to the customer Companies that ship to retailers, restaurants, and consumers directly are included in the food and beverage distribution business Fresh food, packaged food, and drinks are all part of this business (both alcoholic and non-alcoholic) This business services a wide range of retail outlets, from grocery store products to prepared meals provided at restaurants, institutions, and events In reality, F&B services are more common outside of hotels and independent business units (i.e., restaurants, eateries, cafes, tea shops, pubs, bars, lounges, etc.) (Tam, 2020) The Covid-19 epidemic caused some interruption in every business, with food and beverage being one of the most directly and instantly affected Yet, the food and beverage business has rebounded swiftly and is opening several expansion prospects internationally (Tam, 2020) The F&B business, which was valued more than $5.9 trillion in 2019, is predicted to expand just little in 2020 owing to pandemic limitations, but to recover with a 7% increase to about 7.5 trillion USD in 2023 In 2019, Asia had 42% of the F&B market, followed by North America (22%) F&B is one of the few industries in Europe that is expected to rise by 2022 Food deliveries increased by 100% during the Covid-19 interruption, resulting in a rise in delivery services and online orders in the industry Improvements in healthy living have led to a surge in consumer expenditure 1998 Starbucks made Kraft an offer of $750 million in 2010 when sales of its ground whole bean coffee reached $500 million yearly (Katie, 2023) Starbucks wanted more flexibility to advertise the single-serve coffee pods that were becoming increasingly popular at the time Starbucks was only permitted to sell pods compatible with Kraft's Tassimo machines under the terms of the company's contract with Kraft In a race for market share with Green Mountain Coffee's Keurig system and K-Cup single serving packs, Starbucks was in risk of leaving behind The arrangement was eventually terminated despite Kraft's objections, but Starbucks chose to so anyway and started selling K-Cup packs (Katie, 2023) After that, Starbucks' market share for single-serving pods increased by 18.4% Moreover, Starbucks' profits for its grocery store items (including their bottled drinks) increased by about 47% over the course of two years as a result of no longer sharing profits with Kraft, generating $1.4 billion in revenue in fiscal 2013 (Katie, 2023) Since the two sides were unable to come to an agreement on their own, the disagreement over Starbucks' decision to dissolve their cooperation ultimately moved to arbitration The payment was given to Mondelez, a 2012 spinoff of Kraft that makes snacks and confections (Katie, 2023) 15 1.4 Timeline Figure 4: Timeline of Starbucks and Kraft Starbucks finally disapproved with the arbitrator's decision The company had made a public statement that said, "We believe Kraft did not deliver on its responsibilities to our brand under the agreement" (Katie, 2023) 1.5 Objective Starbucks wanted greater flexibility to sell the single-serve coffee pods that were taking off in the market at the time The company’s agreement with Kraft limited Starbucks to selling pods that worked in Kraft’s Tassimo machines This is what causes their agreement to fail (Katie, 2023) The business dispute is an instance of how market trends can change quickly and make negotiated business agreements undesirable over time (Katie, 2023) Through this report, the authors wanted to understand how market conditions and trend changes will affect the cooperation of the parties in a contract, and find solutions to overcome them 16 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 The best choices in negotiation (BATNAs) Before bargaining, the negotiators should prepare "BATNA,” which means "Best Alternative to the Negotiated Agreement." The best alternative will help achieve the desired goals with the fewest trade-offs Means that the negotiators should accept outcomes that are more reasonable than their BATNA and reject outcomes worse than their BATNA (Leigh L Thompson, Jiunwen Wang, and Brian C Gunia, 2009) This concept was introduced by Roger Fisher and William Ury in the best-selling book "Getting to Yes: Negotiating Without Giving In," published in 1981 Thibaut & Kelley (1959) showed that the concept is rooted in social exchange theory According to Bazerman (1992), BATNA is an important factor indicating the strength of each negotiating party The better the BATNA, the more favorable the negotiation, because BATNA supports increasing the bargaining power in the negotiation Figure 5: The relationship between each party’s BATNA 17 2.2 The worst choices in negotiation (WATNAs) WATNA is essentially the worst backup plan for a negotiated agreement, which stands for Worst Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (Roger Fisher & William Ury, 1981) Like BATNA, knowing WATNA and using it to compare with other options in agreements to make informed decisions This is considered an alternative solution that each negotiating party needs to focus on At the negotiating table, negotiators need to find the worst possible solutions in the event of a dispute Such bad condition options often fail to meet the objectives of the parties, or at least meet specific objectives (Beverly DeMarr & Suzanne De Janasz, 2014) WATNA can be a definite benchmark in a negotiation, allowing negotiators to know when to stop If one side's alternative is worse than the other's WATNA, the negotiation stops On the contrary, the alternative is approved even though it is not the best result, but it is still acceptable 2.3 Distributive negotiation Distributive negotiation refers to how negotiators divide or allocate scarce resources or fixed resources like money, property, etc The goal of distributive negotiation is to achieve an efficient alternative that delivers economic results rather than meeting the needs of the parties involved in the negotiation (Leigh L Thompson, Jiunwen Wang, and Brian C Gunia, 2009) This is a typical adversarial relationship, which is also known as the "zero-sum" or "win-lose" definition The parties to the negotiation try to get the most for themselves and then when one side wins or achieves the goal and the other loses Distributive negotiation is chosen by competing communicators when there is a lack of mutual trust and cooperation It is often considered the best approach to negotiation According to Beverly DeMarr & Suzanne De Janasz (2014) The strategies are often very competitive, with each side trying to achieve as much range of settlement as possible Tactics used in distributive negotiations tend to be more direct and assertive because there is little mention of preserving relations between the parties 18 CHAPTER 3: ANALYSIS 3.1 The case Below is the detailed timeline of the Negotiation between Starbucks and Kraft with the highlight events and the situation of the F&B Industry: Year Event Highlights The F&B Industry 1998 Starbucks and Kraft have signed an agreement to cooperate in the distribution and sale of Starbucks packaged coffee Starbucks packaged coffee was sold by Kraft through grocery stores Starbucks was one of the largest in fair trade coffee 2010 Starbucks proposed $750 million to end their contract with Kraft but Kraft rejected it -The deal with Kraft caused Starbucks to shrink to only selling pods that work in Kraft's Tassimo machines The brewer and KCup single serving packs by Green Mountain Coffee’s Keurig system became popular and it was a threat to Starbucks -Kraft asked Starbucks to compensate the fair price with the fair market value of the business and 35% as a premium Starbucks decided to break off the agreement and began to sell K-Cup packs Starbucks' share of the singleserving pod market grew by 18.4%, and as it no longer shares profits with Kraft, Starbucks's profits for grocery products increased about 47% in two years 2012 The arbitrator determined that Starbucks had breached its agreement with Kraft and ordered Starbucks to pay Kraft $2.75 billion Starbucks was dissatisfied with the decision “We believe Kraft did not deliver on its responsibilities to our brand under the agreement” but still made the payment 2011 In 1998, Kraft signed a distribution contract with Starbucks and began selling Starbucks packaged coffee through grocery stores However, in the early 2000s, the 19 retail coffee packaging industry had a transformation when the brewer and K-Cup single serving pack of Green Mountain Coffee's Keurig system became a trend at that time Starbucks needed to develop its own K-Cup pod so that it can keep up with the trends and maintain its position However, the deal with Kraft restricted Starbucks from producing coffee capsules that only worked in Kraft's Tassimo machines, which put Starbucks at risk of being left behind in the race for market share (Katie, 2023) Thus, in 2010, Starbucks offered Kraft $750 million to terminate their negotiated agreement, but Kraft declined as Kraft wanted Starbucks to pay the fair price with the fair market value of the business and a premium of 35% As the agreement was set to expire in 2014, Starbucks did not agree with the price and decided to cut business ties and start selling K-Cup packages Starbucks' share of the single-serve pod market grew by 18.4%, and as it no longer shares profits with Kraft, Starbucks' profits for grocery products have grown by about 47% in two years to $1.4 billion in cumulative revenue in fiscal 2013 (Katie, 2023) An arbitrator determined that Starbucks had breached an agreement with Kraft and ordered the coffee maker to pay the food giant $2.75 billion and the payment was made in 2012 Starbucks did not agree with the arbitrator's decision "We believe Kraft has failed to fulfill its responsibilities to our brand under the agreement." (Katie, 2023) 3.2 Theory application 3.2.1 BATNAs a Starbucks’s BATNA: When Keurig released the coffee maker and K-Cup single-serving packs, it set a new trend for the F&B industry, especially in the coffee industry Moreover, the fact that in 2006 Green Mountain took full control of the Keurig Company and focused on producing specialty coffee flavors in K-Cup pods made Starbucks feel the risk of being left behind in its race for market share (Linda, 2022; Katie, 2023) But at the same time, Starbucks saw the potential of this type of product and wanted to produce its own K-Cup coffee pods However, the agreement with Kraft did not allow them to this; the contract stated that Starbucks could only sell pods for Kraft's Tassimo machines 20 and that they must be distributed by Kraft This was said to be the main reason why Starbucks wants to terminate the contract with Kraft (Katie, 2023) Moreover, Starbucks still had another reason, which was that it believes that Kraft had not fulfilled its responsibilities under the contract as well as not cooperating with Starbucks on marketing and customer contact decisions Led to Starbucks wanting to cancel the deal ahead of time and have the autonomy of its own packaged coffee business (Anne, 2013) Therefore, in negotiations with Kraft, Starbucks’s BATNA ended the contract with Kraft with the lowest possible compensation Starbucks tried to terminate the agreement for 750 million dollars but failed b Kraft’s BATNA: According to Kraft in 2010, the annual sale of Starbucks' packaged coffee retail business grew to $500 million (Anne, 2013) With an estimated annual profit of about $128 million in 50/50 split, the post-split loss did not seem to bother Kraft- the largest US food company by annual revenue of $48 billion Not to mention the fact that Kraft may also receive compensation from Starbucks However, once Starbucks regains distribution rights to its packaged coffee products, Starbucks would aim to expand its coffee and packaged food product lines and compete with Kraft in the future (EconMatters, 2010) Additionally, Starbucks was one of Kraft Tassimo's coffee suppliers, and JP Morgan estimates that 80% of Starbucks customers not have a single-cup coffee maker at home Starbucks establishing a partnership with Green Mountain Coffee Roasters and producing K-Cups exclusively for Keurig, Kraft's main competitor to Tassimo, would pose a major threat to Kraft With the breakup of Starbucks, Kraft also needed to find another partner to strengthen the product line in the coffee sector (EconMatters, 2010) Therefore, the termination of the contract with Starbucks would result in a significant threat for Kraft, and it wanted to prevent this from happening or at least get a large amount of compensation Kraft asked Starbucks to compensate the fair price with the fair market value of the business and 35% as a premium (Lisa Baertlein, 2010) 21 As a result, Kraft’s BATNA in this negotiation was from keeping the autonomy of selling Starbucks packaged coffee to get a good compensation 3.2.2 WATNAs a Starbucks’s WATNA: Starbucks was the wrong party because it wanted to terminate the contract with Kraft ahead of time, so Starbucks would be at a disadvantage if it failed to reach an agreement to end the deal with Kraft and was forced to breach the contract If Kraft decided to sue Starbucks, Starbucks could face the risk of having to bear a large amount of compensation that is more than what it is Besides, the trust of partners and suppliers in Starbucks may be shaken because of this event However, even after learning and knowing the worst scenario, Starbucks still chose to breach this contract with Kraft In conclusion, Starbucks’s WATNA was to cancel the agreement with Kraft regardless of the contract b Kraft’s WATNA: As mentioned above, the contract between Starbucks and Kraft had brought many benefits to Kraft, so if Starbucks still insisted on canceling the contract, Kraft may suffer heavy losses Therefore, Kraft wanted to have a good compensation from Starbucks, at least equal to its perceived present day estimate of the contract value After all, Kraft’s WATNA was to end the contract with Starbucks and only receive the compensation equal to its perceived present day estimate of the contract value So, when Starbucks offered for 750 million dollars to end the contract, Kraft refused as it was not enough in its point of view 3.2.3 Distributive negotiation Distributive negotiation is a negotiation in which parties compete to allocate benefits, the goal of which is to achieve more interests rather than satisfy the needs of the other parties (Leigh L Thompson, Jiunwen Wang, and Brian C Gunia, 2009) Both Starbucks and Kraft bargained to get the most profit on their side, and to be the winner in this negotiation, which is the feature of Distributive Negotiation 22 Specifically, here, for Starbucks, it tried to be able to terminate the contract by offering $750 million dollars, and after being unable to negotiate successfully with Kraft, it decided to disregard the terms of the contract On the Kraft side, they were also adamant not to cancel the contract despite the offers offered by Starbucks and decided to sue Starbucks when it unilaterally terminated the contract The two parties did not work together to find a common voice and come up with a mutually beneficial solution, but only focused on winning for themselves Thus, the negotiation lasted for three years and ended only when a conclusion came from the court Additionally, the deal's scandal tarnished the image of both companies and sent Starbucks shares down 10 cents to $31.04 in premarket trading, while Kraft shares fell cents to $30.25 (Lisa Baertlein, 2010) After the negotiations ended, Starbucks suffered heavy losses due to having to pay $ 2.75 billion to Kraft as well as losses due to a drop in the share price In addition, Kraft was also affected by this negotiation, it took Kraft years to complete the lawsuit against Starbucks, the image of the company as well as the stock was also reduced Moreover, Kraft also had to find other partners to fill the gap of Starbucks and must compete with the cooperation of Starbucks and the Keurig system of Green Mountain Coffee in the future 3.3 Evaluation 3.3.1 The failure of make adaptable agreements for changing conditions F&B is a highly competitive and constantly changing industry, especially in the US - a highly integrated market and ready to adapt to new trends Therefore, it was difficult for Kraft and Starbucks to anticipate market fluctuations and competitors, which caused their contract to fail desired results over time (Katie, 2023) Evidence shows that the combination of Keurig and Green Mountain made the contract no longer meet the requirements of Starbucks and they wished to terminate it Before signing, Starbucks and Kraft should have taken more time to review and add terms that are more flexible and adaptable as the economy and industry changes In addition, they also should have discussed terms as well as compensation in advance 23 if either party wants to terminate the contract ahead of time so as not to cause unnecessary disputes as well as waste of time (Katie, 2023) 3.3.2 The failure to work towards an integrative negotiation As mentioned above, both Starbucks and Kraft companies have used Distributive Negotiation to negotiate with each other Both only focused on their own interests, so they could not reach a final agreement that both sides benefited To be able to proceed to an integrative negotiation requires support from both sides Both parties must listen to each other's requirements, learn about BATNA and WATNA of the other party to determine the ZOPA (Zone of possible agreement), thereby finding the best solution that both parties can achieve Instead of listening to each other's needs, Kraft and Starbucks chose to fight to keep most of the pie to themselves As a result, the negotiation dragged on, but both could not decide on a solution and had to resort to the judge to make the decision This negotiation also damaged the reputation of both companies and caused their shares to fall, as well as affect the relationship between the two companies 24 CHAPTER 4: SOLUTION Both Starbucks and Kraft suffered certain damages from the deal, so as a thirdparty,we will offer some solutions that both parties could have done in the past For the first solution, in the appearance of new competitors and trends in the industry, Starbucks and Kraft should have continued to work together to learn Keurig new technology and develop a completely new product line with more improvements and more convenience to consumers The combination between the two big men with the experience and long-term understanding in the industry, this would not be a difficult task at all It would also bring more economic profit as well as help both open a monopoly of their own The second solution for Starbucks is that instead of terminating the contract voluntarily and then being sued, Starbucks should have tried harder to negotiate with Kraft and listen to Kraft's demands Kraft asked Starbucks to compensate the fair price with the fair market value of the business and 35% as a premium, which, according to calculations, is just about over $1.5 billion in severance fees (EconMatters, 2010) Although this is also a large expense, it is at least much less than the $2.75 billion Starbucks would have to pay if it voluntarily terminated the contract In addition, if Starbucks had tried to negotiate with Kraft, it would have been likely that they would reduce this number and Starbucks may not lose the image of the company Therefore, in this negotiation, we suggest that Starbucks should try towards an integrative negotiation with Starbucks Finally, instead of persuading Kraft to terminate the contract, Starbucks could have negotiated with Kraft to obtain the rights to manufacture and sell K-Cup pods Because negotiating for the right to produce and sell K-Cup pods would be easier and less expensive than terminating the contract with Kraft completely, and Starbucks would still maintain its position as well as the company's reputation, and its business relationship with Kraft While terminating the entire deal with Kraft would help Starbucks regain full rights to its packaged coffee lines, it would cost Starbucks a fortune Following the termination of its contract with Kraft, Starbucks' profits on 25 grocery products increased about 47% over two years to $1.4 billion in cumulative revenue in fiscal 2013, but Starbucks had to pay up to $2.75 billion in compensation to Kraft Therefore, it would be wiser for Starbucks to keep the contract with Kraft and regain the rights to the packaged coffee after the contract terminates Since the contract only had four years left, Starbucks will also have full discretion over its packed coffee lines once the contract ends, so allowing Starbucks to manufacture and sell its K-Cup pod will help Kraft keep its suppliers for Kraft Tassimo's coffee and keep the fame from Starbucks products for years After years when the contract ends, Kraft can renegotiate another contract with Starbucks instead of losing the current business relationship completely and becoming an opponent with Starbucks 26 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION Starbucks wants to modify its strategic course without having to pay the agreedupon price for doing so In other words, it wants to have its cake and eat it too Because of this, it has created fabricated claims of material breach and invented a brand-new termination process that allows it to seize control of the company Kraft developed and compel Kraft to either obtain a preliminary injunction or violate its exclusivity requirements This is not equitable in any way As a result, Kraft demands that the Court declare that it is about to suffer immediate and irreparable loss And therefore, it is qualified to have its application for a preliminary injunction fully considered Due to a partnership's challenging nature, it is crucial that business partners use interest-based decision making, which could produce more advantageous outcomes Too frequently, parties use tactics that are focused on rights or power, which only leads to conflict on both sides The success of a business relationship is also determined by how each party respects the other, the more time you spend analyzing your agreement and hunting for loopholes in its terminology, the further you might be from what made it (or could make it) successful, especially when licensing is done on the magnitude of the KraftStarbucks transaction Although Kraft can be considered the victor in this negotiation, more value could have been created or "won" for both parties rather than Starbucks owing Kraft and a forever dissolved partnership 27 REFERENCES Brandsvietnam (2014); Ông lớn thứ Ngành Hàng Bánh Kẹo Kraft Foods Sẽ Nhảy vào Việt Nam Brands Vietnam (n.d.) https://www.brandsvietnam.com/5039-Ong-lon-thu-2-nganh-hang-banh-keoKraft-Foods-se-nhay-vao-Viet-Nam Brandsvietnam (2019); Starbucks toán tăng trưởng Doanh Thu Brands Vietnam (n.d.) Retrieved April 9, 2023, from https://www.brandsvietnam.com/17476-Starbucks-va-bai-toan-tang-truongdoanh-thu EconMatters (2010); Why A Starbucks-Kraft Feud Will Be Costly For Both Companies; Business Insider; https://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-kraft2010-12 Katie Shonk (2023); Negotiation in Business: Starbucks and Kraft’s Coffee Conflict; Program on Negotiation Harvard Law School; https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/business-negotiations/the-starbucks-kraftdispute-in-business-negotiations-prepare-for-problems/ Leigh L Thompson, Jiunwen Wang, and Brian C Gunia (2010); Negotiation; Annual Reviews; https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100458 Linda (2022); Keurig: The History Of A Leading Coffee Maker Brand; The Commons; https://www.thecommonscafe.com/keurig-the-history-of-a-leadingcoffee-maker-brand/ Lisa Baertlein and Martinne Geller (2010); Starbucks: Kraft screwed up our partnership; NBCNEWS; https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna40408211 Samantha Loveday (2021) Starbucks is most valuable restaurant brand for fifth consecutive year Licensing Source (n.d.) Retrieved April 9, 2023, from https://www.licensingsource.net/starbucks-is-most-valuable-restaurant-brandfor-fifth-consecutive-year/ 28 Tâm, M (2022, June 21) F&B LÀ GÌ? Xu Hướng Tiềm Năng Phát triển DU HỌC INEC Retrieved April 9, 2023, from https://duhocinec.com/nganhfood-and-beverage-la-gi/ 29