Comparison and contrast between the two coffee making companies
The Starbucks’s homepage is quite appealing and smarter than Greenmountaincoffee’s website. The information is precise in the former but is in full and confidently would catch reader’s attention due to the precise format of the information. For Greenmountaincoffee the site is quite elaborative with product details, customer reviews and many more making it complete but quite large in number for dealing. Both of them follow a business to business (B2B) and business to customer model (B2C) which caters to various individuals and businesses for accomplishing their customer service.
The concept of “add to basket”, “checkout” and other scenarios display real content and make sure that the customer feels at the center of their universe when shopping for their coffee. The difference is in the ulterior motive of the two firms engaged in selling coffee and coffee products over the internet. The motive of Starbucks and Greenmountaincoffee is to ultimate earn profit, however the dedication and contribution to society is seen largely for Greenmountaincoffee (see: http://www. greenmountaincoffee. com/CSTM_Brewing-A-Better-World. aspx).
Greenmountaincoffee caters to supporting local communities in donations, employee volunteerism programs, domestic grants and many other foster growth and trust in them. Contributing to make a social place lively by reducing solid waste, responsible use of energy, conventional sourcing, community partnerships and many more speak volumes about their great contribution to society and environment at a large scale. Starbucks on the other hand has also depicted responsible actions towards society in the form of contributing its assistance to savethechildren.
com and mercycrops. org for improving children’s health. Conclusion Engineering principles were a necessity in the complexity/diversity surrounding online activity. Legal and ethical issues are vital to security conscious users. Starbucks and Greenmountaincoffee have utilized their virtualized value system for economies of scale and global reach. Their virtual community model has excelled in customer relations, aiding brand image. Associates and business model flexibility have sustained competitive advantage.
Armstrong, A. & Hagel, J.(1996) The Real Value of On-line Communities, Harvard Business Review, pp. 134-141. Berscheid, E (1985). Interpersonal attraction. In Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. , Handbook of Social Psychology: pp. 413-484. Chaffey, D. (2004). E-Business and E-Commerce Management, 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall, Pearson Education Limited, pp. 46, 53, 55, 224, 492. Cooke, M. (1997) Java e-commerce: technologies for distributed enterprise computing. Retrieved 2, May 2008 from http://www. dcs. shef. ac. uk/~martin/teaching/ecommerce/intro_1. ppt. Hamel, G. & Sampler, J. (1998). The E-Corporation, Fortune, pp. 80-93.