What happened to Teavana?

Teavana began its life as an American tea company Teavana Corporation, founded in 1997 by husband-and-wife team Andrew and Nancy Mack. 

The first store was founded with the pair’s life savings, with its success allowing them to open subsequent stores in the following years.

To accelerate the company’s growth, the Macks used the franchise model for a while but then had a change of heart and decided to buy out all of their franchisees.

Substantial investment from SKM Growth Investors in 2005 set Teavana on a growth trajectory that allowed the company to open 50 stores and expand internationally.

Six years later, the company debuted on the New York Stock Exchange, raised $121 million, and had close to 180 stores in several countries.

In 2017, however, every single one of Teavana’s 379 locations was shut down, with more than 3,200 employees losing their jobs.

Starbucks acquisition

In November 2012, Starbucks announced it had entered into a merger agreement with Teavana to acquire it for $620 million.

The coffee giant then embarked on an aggressive expansion strategy to open new stores.

Tea bars also opened in New York City, and Beverley Hills gave consumers a tactile tea experience and allowed them to engage with the brand.

This strategy worked for a while since, at the time, the specialty tea products that Teavana sold were difficult to source and were somewhat of a novelty.

Moreover, eCommerce had not yet taken off, and most consumers shopped in malls where most Teavana stores were located.

Store closures

As early as 2016, however, Teavana’s brick-and-mortar stores started to feel pressure from online sales.

Tea bars were shut down and redesigned as Starbucks stores, but the company continued its international expansion and entered into several high-profile partnerships.

Teavana was successful in China and India, with a large cohort of tea drinkers.

CEO Howard Schultz saw the writing on the wall in April 2017.

However, he questioned whether the promotion of Teavana in physical stores was the correct strategy.

A few months later, it was announced that all 379 stores would close. 

Then VP of concept development and franchising Charlie Cain had this to say:

While tea has consistently been among the fastest-growing categories within Starbucks stores, maintaining Teavana as a stand-alone chain dedicated to bulk-tea and accessories proved to be a less efficient and profitable strategy for driving tea consumption and revenue.

Business model and consumer preferences

Aside from the obvious threat of eCommerce, most Teavana stores reported impressive early sales data but failed to sustain this level over time.

Unfortunately, it was found that most consumers purchased specialty teas as seasonal gifts for others and purchased the tea they consumed regularly at supermarkets.

This was a preference Teavana could not overcome.

Starbucks representatives also acknowledged that the business model of Teavana was unsuitable outside of a mall environment that was diminishing in popularity.

According to Cain, the retail model, product range, brand positioning, and customer expectations were simply too difficult to alter, given time constraints and market preferences.

Moreover, there was neither space nor the required food service equipment in Starbucks cafes to sell a diverse range of teas.

At the time of writing, a small number of Teavana products continue to be sold in Starbucks locations around the world.

Key takeaways:

  • Teavana began its life as an American tea company Teavana Corporation, founded in 1997 by husband-and-wife team Andrew and Nancy Mack.
  • Teavana failed for a few reasons. While initially successful, its brick-and-mortar stores reduced the novelty factor of specialist teas for consumers and suffered intense competition from eCommerce. Starbucks also discovered that it could not convince consumers to purchase Teavana tea consistently.
  • While some Teavana products are sold in Starbucks locations today, the range is limited by a lack of floor space and appropriate food service equipment.

Main Free Guides:

Related Business Stories

What Happened to WeWork

WeWork is a commercial real estate company providing shared workspaces for tech start-ups and other enterprise services. It was founded by Adam Neumann and Miguel McKelvey in 2010. WeWork’s business model was built on complex arrangements between the company and its landlords. There were also several conflicts of interest between Neumann and WeWork, which provided the impetus for the failed IPO and significant devaluation that would follow.

What Happened to Netscape

Netscape – or Netscape Communications Corporation – was a computer services company best known for its web browser. The company was founded in 1994 by Marc Andreessen and James H. Clark as one of the internet’s first and most important start-ups. The Netscape Navigator web browser was released in 1995 and became the browser of choice for the users of the time. By November 1998, it had been acquired by AOL, which tried unsuccessfully to revive the popularity of the web browser. Ten years later, Netscape was shut down entirely.

What Happened to Musical.ly

Musically, or Musical.ly as it is officially known, was a Chinese social media platform headquartered in Shanghai. After passing 200 million users in May 2017, the platform was shut down by tech company ByteDance in November. After its acquisition, ByteDance suggested Musical.ly would continue to operate as a standalone platform. Company representatives noted that it would be able to leverage ByteDance’s AI technology and enormous reach in the Chinese market. Musically was ultimately absorbed into TikTok in June 2018, with the app no longer available in August of the same year. Existing users were offered technical support and several new features as a sweetener.

What Happened to Vine

Vine was an American video social networking platform with a focus on looping video clips of six seconds in length, founded by Dom Hofmann, Rus Yusupov, and Colin Kroll in 2012 to help people capture casual moments in their lives and share them with their friends. Vine went on to become a massively popular platform. Yet by 2016, Twitter discontinued the mobile app, allowing users to view or download content on the Vine website. It then announced a reconfigured app allowing creators to share content to a connected Twitter account only. This marked the end of Vine.

What Happened to CNN Plus

CNN Plus was a video streaming service and offshoot of CNN’s cable TV news network that was launched on March 29, 2022. The service was ultimately shut down just one month after it was launched. Trouble began for the platform when parent company WarnerMedia merged with Discovery. The latter was unimpressed with paltry viewer data and, with $55 billion in debt to clear, was not interested in funding CNN+ moving forward. Other contributing factors to CNN Plus’s demise include a lack of compelling content and streaming service market saturation.

What Happened to Clubhouse

Clubhouse is a social app that allows thousands of people to communicate with each other in audio chat rooms. At one point, the company was worth $4 billion and boasted users such as Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk. Clubhouse declined because it rode the wave of pandemic lockdowns and suffered when people resumed their normal routines. The decision to remove the invite-only feature also caused a rapid influx of new members and removed any exclusivity. Clubhouse management also failed to define a business model and was unaware of the components of a successful social media site.

What Happened to Facebook


What Happened to Sean Parker

Sean Parker is an American entrepreneur most associated with the music-sharing platform Napster. Parker founded Napster with childhood friend Shawn Fanning, and the service was launched in June 1999 while the pair were still teenagers. Napster’s ultimate demise in 2001 is well documented. Parker was forced to step down as Facebook president in 2005 after an arrest for drug possession in North Carolina. Still, he retained a significant shareholding and informal involvement with the company. He then worked with Peter Thiel at his venture capital firm for a time and then moved into philanthropic efforts.

About The Author

Scroll to Top