Starbucks's Three CEOs in Three Years: Two Turnarounds, Two Opposite Endings

The story

November 2023: "We have great momentum"

On the Q4 FY2023 earnings call, CEO Laxman Narasimhan — who had succeeded Howard Schultz's interim stint earlier in 2023 — opened with total confidence: "we have great momentum." FY2023 revenue had grown 12%, beating the top end of guidance, and comparable sales were up 8%. He branded his strategy "Triple Shot Reinvention," and the word "Reinvention" appeared 19 times in that year's 10-K. On the strength of that record, he guided FY2024 to 10-12% revenue growth and "progressive margin expansion."

The cracks showed within three months

By January 2024, the company had already cut FY2024 revenue guidance from 10-12% down to 7-10%. By April, it was cut again to "low single digits," and for the first time, the comparable-sales guidance itself flipped to "flat to negative." On the July Q3 earnings call, Narasimhan reported global comparable sales down 3% (China down 14%) and said plainly, "we are not satisfied with the results." Two months later, in September 2024, he was out as CEO — less than a year after his strategy first appeared in a 10-K — and Brian Niccol, who had been running Chipotle, took over as Chairman and CEO.

Niccol opened with the worst numbers first

Niccol's first earnings call, in October 2024 (Q4), skipped the promotional language and led with blunt numbers: comparable sales down 7%, U.S. traffic declining across every channel and every daypart, China down 14%. The company's own language shifted too — "Reinvention" appeared 19 times in the FY2023 10-K, fell to 3 in FY2024, and vanished entirely (0 mentions) in FY2025, while "Back to Starbucks" went from 0 mentions (FY2023) to 4 (FY2024) to 21 (FY2025). In the risk-factor list, "Brand Relevance and Brand Execution" risk has ranked #1 for three straight years running — the company itself now names its own brand, not macro conditions or supply chains, as its single biggest threat.

Restructuring, a China sale, and a reversal

In Q4 FY2025, Starbucks booked an $892 million one-time restructuring charge for store closures and headcount reductions, and in November 2025 it agreed to sell up to 60% of its China retail business to private-equity firm Boyu Capital. Then, in 2026, the trend flipped entirely. On the January earnings call, Niccol guided FY2026 to "comparable sales growth of 3%-plus" and EPS of $2.15-2.40 — modest targets. By July (Q3), actual comparable sales came in at +7.9%, and EPS grew 70% year over year, both well above guidance. Management raised full-year guidance on the strength of those results.

That statement stands in sharp contrast to Narasimhan's "we have great momentum" from three years earlier — one confident opening led to a guidance-cutting spiral and a CEO change, the other's blunt, low-expectations opening is now producing a beat-and-raise streak.

Guidance scorecard

Under Narasimhan (FY2024), guidance was cut twice in one year and the company still missed the lowered target's margin. Under Niccol (FY2026), a modestly set target was beaten by a wide margin and then raised. The two CEOs' credibility diverges sharply in the numbers.

Source: earnings call transcripts, Q4 FY2023, Q1/Q2 FY2024, Q1/Q3 FY2026; 10-K FY2024, p.29 (actual revenue and margin).

Timeline

• Nov 2, 2023Narasimhan guides FY2024 to +10-12% revenue and "progressive" margin expansion.
• Apr 30, 2024Guidance cut a second time; comparable-sales guidance flips to flat/negative.
• Sep 2024Brian Niccol becomes Chairman and CEO.
• Q4 FY2025$892M restructuring charge booked for "Back to Starbucks" store closures and headcount cuts.
• Nov 3, 2025Agreement to sell up to 60% of China retail business to Boyu Capital.
• Jul 29, 2026Fourth consecutive quarter of positive comparable sales; FY2026 guidance raised.

Our read

Two CEOs, two opposite outcomes, inside the same three-year window: Narasimhan's confident, well-branded turnaround unraveled within months of its own launch, while Niccol's plan — which started by admitting the worst numbers rather than spinning them — is now producing results that beat and exceed its own modest targets. Whether this reflects durable structural improvement in the actual customer experience, or a comparison against an unusually weak prior year, is the open question the next couple of quarters need to answer.

What we still don't know

• Whether the FY2026 rebound is structural or a base-effect bounce can't be fully separated from this data alone — it requires watching the next one to two quarters, particularly once the easy year-over-year comparisons fade.
• How China results will be reflected in consolidated financials after the joint venture closes — if Starbucks ends up holding only a 40% stake, China revenue could shift to equity-method accounting rather than full consolidation, changing how it appears in reported results.
• The specific internal catalyst behind Narasimhan's September 2024 departure isn't disclosed in the 10-K or earnings calls used here — board deliberations or the exact trigger would require proxy statements or press coverage not included in this analysis.