...so, Starbucks paid some guerrilla marketing company millions of dollars to stage an absurd publicity stunt. Supporting Facts: 1. All publicity is good pub

...so, Starbucks paid some guerrilla marketing company millions of dollars to stage an absurd publicity stunt. Supporting Facts: 1. All publicity is good publicity. 2. All branding is identical, verbatim, (e.g. no use of small, medium, large; instead branded sizing parlance is used) forcing the customer to closely inspect the imitation for flaws. This forces a level of psychological engagement in the customer that would not occur in regular, legitimate establishments. 3. Starbucks, for all it's popularity, rarely experiences negative press. Thus, their brand can easily tolerate examples of light trolling. 4. Dubious "news" coverage offers vectors for market penetration into sectors that represent the Lowest Common Denominator, without cheapening Starbucks' brand. In other words, they can speak to an audience that they'd rather not be associated with, without having to directly engage them. They can inject their brand's presence into the daily lives of people who would not ordinarily pay attention to their usual modes of advertising. 5. Without an entity to claim credit for this activity, this parody only serves to provide increased exposure to Starbucks. A well executed parody without an author will provide no alternate context to the premise of the joke. If there is any meaning or theme to the parody, the audience can barely guess at what it should be, if the intent of the performer cannot be discerned. 6. Hypothesis: The "Dumb" shop will only stay open for as long as the minor local news publicity lasts. It's there only to make people use the word "Starbucks" as frequently as possible, in as many sound bites as possible, trigger some water cooler conversation for about a week (word of mouth buzz), and then die.