One of the best ways for your business to get exposure and credibility is through public relations. Yet, hiring a PR firm can be expensive, easily running $5,000 to $10,000 per month.

Despite this, it's possible to do PR on your own. Keep in mind that a key to success is having an active and passionate founder or CEO who makes media relations a priority. This has been the case with many great leaders, such as Howard Schultz at Starbucks (NYSE: SBUX) and Marc Benioff at Salesforce.com (NYSE: CRM).

So, let's take a look at some of the steps you can take to improve your PR.

Via, the new instant coffee product from Starbucks Corporation (NASDAQ: SBUX), is making its debut Tuesday on the national stage.

The powdered java was already available in select markets, but the so-called ready brew is now being rolled out to all of the coffee chain's U.S. locations -- and CEO Howard Schultz promises it "will change the way people drink coffee."

Well, what took them so long? Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX) is going to start offering instant coffee for $1 a cup next week. Apparently, the new instant product has been in the development pipeline for roughly 20 years. Yes, 20 years ladies and gents. Old Howard Schultz and his java minions have been sitting on this earth-shattering release for 20 years. Trust them, this $1 cup of coffee has nothing to do with challenges from the likes of McDonald's (NYSE: MCD) or Dunkin' Donuts. Nor does this new product have anything to do with the company's financial struggles.

Of course, you can't saunter into one of your five local Starbucks emporiums and order up a $1 cup of coffee, you have to buy three packs of the instant coffee for $2.95 (according to The Wall Street Journal) or $9.95 for a pack of 12. At that price, I would be willing to try this new coffee creation named Via.
The caffeine king contends that the instant coffee market remains a $17 billion global market, and it is now trying to find its niche in that world.

Former high-flyer Starbucks Corp. (NASDAQ: SBUX) put a coffee shop on every street corner during the time of easy credit. The pure saturation strategy had no basis in demand.

Instead, the company rode the wave of Wall Street, believing in its own omnipotence. Books were written about the supposed greatness of company founder Howard Schultz.

It was enough to make anyone sick. Of course, no one cared when it was all working.

Now that it's apparent the strategy was completely off base, the question is, will the company survive? The answer is not obvious.

My friends will tell you that I am not a big fan of Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX), the coffee nor the company. Yes, I will occasionally stop in and get a grande latte -- but only if I am nowhere near a McDonald's (NYSE: MCD) and I absolutely have to have some caffeine. Not only is MCD's latte comparable in taste, but it is cheaper ... a characteristic very important in our current economy. It seems that other latte lovers are taking the same route as yours truly, as SBUX saw its quarterly earnings fall short of the consensus estimate.

In the latest quarter, SBUX earned 15 cents per share (excluding charges), which fell two cents shy of the Street's expectations. Moreover, these results were 13 cents short of last year's same-quarter results. Sales at the caffeine king's outlets dropped by 5.5% to $2.6 billion, which means a lot of folks are taking their business elsewhere. (Although, let's not forget that SBUX CEO Howard Schultz once said that MCD is not serious competition to his company.) For the fifth straight quarter, SBUX saw retail traffic fall.

Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX) CEO Howard Schultz and the company's other top executives did not earn bonuses for 2008 as the company's fortunes deteriorated.

Schultz's compensation package declined to $9.7 million from $10.6 million in 2007. According to the proxy statement, Schultz will be taking a long-term stock option grant in lieu of bonuses for the current fiscal year as well.

That all sounds good but in March, the company will be asking its shareholders to approve a plan that would allow executives to trade in their underwater stock options for a smaller number of new ones with a lower strike price. Ordinarily this is the kind of thing that drives executive pay hawks nuts but in this case it might be fair.

Starbucks fortunes have declined along with the rest of the restaurant industry because of an unprecedented rout in consumer spending. There have also been some significant missteps leading up to that mess, but the company's low stock price is partly a result of factors beyond Schultz and company's control. If the options are not repriced, executives could be tempted to bold for competitors who are offering options grants priced based on current low valuations.

The exchange ratios also seem fair. For instance, executives with options with strike prices of $35 or higher will be able to trade those in for new ones based on the price of around $9 per share: But they'll receive 1/15.5th the number of options.

Starbucks (NASDAQ:SBUX) is on the Fortune list of "100 Best Places To Work." It is extremely hard to imagine how that happened. It fired 12,000 people earlier this year and now it's is saying it may not match employee 401 (K) programs. According to USA Today, "In a memo sent to workers last week, Starbucks said it will switch to a "fully discretionary match" program from a fixed employer match as of Jan. 1."

To make matters worse, Starbucks is in hot water for trying to keep unions out of its New York stores. According to The New York Times," a National Labor Relations Board judge ruled on Tuesday that Starbucks had illegally fired three baristas and otherwise violated federal labor laws in seeking to beat back unionization efforts at several of its Manhattan cafes."

What becomes more clear with each passing month is that the image Starbucks wants to push with its workers and the public is false. It is not a company that takes remarkably good care of its people. The PR crew at the company paint an image of founder Howard Schultz as a benevolent father to his employees, a guy who wants them to get ahead and fulfill their full potential. This probably helps bring in customers who want to see all of those happy workers getting up at the crack of dawn and working long hours to serve customers who love Starbucks for its great products and pristine image.

It is worthwhile to remember that Starbucks is still a successful company and Schultz is not working for a dollar a year.

The coffee chain is promoting an image that is simply not true.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

This post is one in a series on prominent company nicknames. See all 25, and share your thoughts and memories about Four Bucks below in the comments.

As big multinational corporations go, Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX) had such possibility. Rooted in the heart of the Pacific Northwest, born of grunge rock and a commitment to really good coffee and a distinct sense of place, embracing the centuries-old European coffeehouse tradition with its literary name, Starbucks, Captain Ahab's first mate in Moby Dick. The company's founders were all about the beans, buying them directly from growers in Africa and Central America and roasting the beans themselves.

It was entrepreneurial upstart Howard Schultz who conceived of the strategy of making espressos, coffees, and lattes in the coffee shops and selling them for big profit margins. And in the 1980s, milk was cheap and coffee was cheaper. I like to imagine that, as the company's founders sat around a cafe table in Seattle's Pike Place Market, drinking their mellow brew and listening to Schultz's wild ideas, the others scoffed at the concept of someone paying upwards of three dollars for a latte.

"I've spotted an excellent opportunity to cash in on the turnaround of one of America's most visible companies -- Starbucks (NASDAQ: SBUX)," says Jim Stanton.

The quantitative analyst and contributing editor to Xcelerated Profits Report explains, "I've had my eye on a number of retail stocks for some time now, looking for signs of a potential turnaround, and Starbucks is now high on my list."

"One of the main reasons for the slide in SBUX shares from its high of $40 in November 2006 was the overly aggressive expansion plan.

"And as food and dairy prices have soared, this has led to higher operating costs. In turn, this forced Starbucks to raise prices, just as consumers were struggling from the housing slump and soaring inflation.

"And as competition from the likes of McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts has turned up the heat, Starbucks has suffered charges related to closing out unprofitable stores. But Starbucks is tackling the problems.

With its stock teetering near 5-year lows on concerns about its growth prospects and style drift from its roots as a coffee shop, returning Starbucks Corp. (NASDAQ: SBUX) CEO, Howard Schultz, said earlier this year that the company would stop selling sandwiches.

Let the backtracking begin. The Wall Street Journal reports (subscription required) that Starbucks won't be discontinuing sandwiches after all. Rather, the sandwiches will "evolve," according to a Starbucks spokesperson. The company will use a different kind of cheese and less butter in an effort to prevent the scent of sandwiches from overpowering the aroma of coffee.

This looks to me like a move motivated by Wall Street rather than a broad corporate vision. Mr. Schultz made it clear that he wanted to get rid of sandwiches back in January, telling investors that "In short, the scent of the warm sandwiches interferes with the coffee aroma in our stores, which is the key to the coffee experience that forges our connection with customers."

Did it all of a sudden occur to Schultz that it might be possible to make the sandwiches less pungent? I somehow doubt it. Rather Starbucks looked at the fact that sandwiches make up 3% of the company's sales -- plus whatever additional coffee sales they generate -- and that, with the stock about 50% of its 52-week high, this just wasn't the time to take a same-store sales hit in the name of long-term vision. If this were a private company, I seriously doubt that they'd have reconsidered the plan to stop selling sandwiches. The power of the institutional imperative appears to have trumped Schultz's ideas for returning the company to its roots.

Starbucks' (NASDAQ: SBUX) Howard Schultz came back to the CEO role in late 2007 to hopefully rescue the once great concept he has so passionately developed since the 1980s. Fair enough. Could this be the second coming of Steve Jobs of Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) or would it resemble the mediocre return of Michael Dell of Dell (NASDAQ: DELL)? The jury is out and time will tell.

For now, I have one major bone to pick. Howard, let's take some time here to review the store closures. I am sure a mid-level vice president made the geographical decisions. But I hope you really scoured the list carefully.

Let's take an example: Minnetonka, Minnesota. Howard, I'm sure it may not mean much to you. After all, you were raised in New York and currently live in Seattle, so Minnesota may be flyover country. Minnetonka is a western suburb of Minneapolis sporting a growing population of about 52,000. Minnetonka is a fairly upscale suburb with near full employment. Just for your information, Minnetonka is also the world headquarters for the biggest private company in the world; probably one of your suppliers. The company is called Cargill -- just in case your VP missed it.

It's on the Starbucks hit list. You are closing the Minnetonka store. Are you nuts?!! I have written in the past that this store should serve as one of your models on how to do it right. Sure, economics eventually have to make sense. This store is about three years old and the growth of traffic has been steady. Used to be one person in line at 10:30 am, now it's common to see a continuous stream of 7-8 people in that off -hour line. Early mornings are very busy.

In a brilliant article in The New York Times, the paper points out that of all the mistakes that Starbucks Corp. (NASDAQ: SBUX) made in its expansion, picking real estate locations may have been the worst. Much of the analysis for the piece came from talking to real estate brokers. The paper writes, "In some cases, brokers say, Starbucks misjudged the risks of putting stores close to each other, leading to the decline in same-store sales."

It is astonishing that Starbucks would make such basic errors and speaks to what happened to management during the period when founder Howard Schultz was absent from the CEO job. The team that replaced him said it believed the company would eventually have 40,000 store worldwide. It clearly cut corners in terms of planning to get there.

The real trouble with the real estate location decisions is that it may take a very long time to fix. Closing stores may be easy, but finding better spots, negotiated for the space, and building out new stores will be time consuming and, perhaps, expensive.

Schultz and his minions are paying for rampant growth, and the poor souls who worked for him are paying more. Almost 12,000 will lose their jobs.

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) co-founder Bill Gates is riding off into the sunset today, at least he sort of is. The man who made nerds and geeks "cool" is shifting his focus away from the world's largest software company to his philanthropic work.

Gates contributions to modern society cannot be understated. When he gets older, my 20-month-old son will no doubt be surprised to learn that there was a time when computers were expensive, impersonal devices the size of several refrigerators. Gates helped make the computer personal. Of that there is no doubt. How he did it remains open to debate. The elite geeks despise Microsoft for developing expensive, inferior operating systems that are prone to crashes and computer viruses.

The shift by Gates, which has been expected for some time, comes as the Redmond, Washington-based company is at a crossroads. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, Microsoft was the underdog that upended the tech establishment lead by International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE: IBM).

I almost can't believe that I'm writing about this, but I guess some prudes will get up in arms about anything.

BBC News reports that a U.S. based Christian group known as The Resistance is calling for a nationwide boycott of the coffee selling giant, Starbucks Corp. (NASDAQ: SBUX). The group's complaint against the company stems from the commemorative use of a toned-down version of the company's original logo. Starbucks states that the logo, which features a dual-tailed mermaid sporting cleavage, is not inappropriate. The fringe Christian group refers to the logo as a naked woman with legs "spread like a prostitute."

The news report from BBC states: "Howard Schultz, who bought Starbucks in 1982, described the emblem in his memoirs as "bare-breasted and Rubenesque; [it] was supposed to be as seductive as coffee itself."

To look at the logo that is claimed to offend, one has a difficult time even seeing it as raunchy. To call the flared dual tails a pair of spread legs might be a feat best accomplished while on serious hallucinogens. Clearly, this group of well-meaning Christians is at a loss for real issues to attack. The fringe group's lack of imagination in seeking some media exposure for itself is seen by me as a shallow act of spotlight grabbing.

Starbucks is reported by the BBC as stating that the bare breasted mermaid will appear on some of its cups for several weeks as part of a company promotion. It was not revealed which of Starbucks' 16,000 coffee shops in 44 countries will be featuring the racy mermaid cups. However, I'm sure that anyone who is interested in getting one of these alleged soft-porn coffee cups may rest assured that, before too long, they'll be available to anyone via eBay.

To see all 10 of Sarah Gilbert's top 10 best and worst naked advertising campaigns, click here.

MSNBC reports on an earth-shattering scandal sure to make heads roll at Starbucks (NYSE: SBUX). Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen have been ordering Grande nonfat lattes from their favorite New York City West Village Starbucks. However, a barista there has reportedly been serving the lattes with whole milk.

According to a source quoted by MSNBC, "the barista thought the Olsens were too thin, so whenever they ordered their usual drink, he would replace the skim milk with full-fat." The Olsen's representative commented: "This is ridiculous." But a so-called close friend blamed the Olsens for for their ignorance, noting: "It's also my worst nightmare -- that and getting a huge diet fountain soda that is mistakenly regular Coke -- but I can def(initely) taste the difference, so it's their own fault if they fell victim."

Did Howard Schultz, recently re-appointed Starbucks CEO make this latte swap? The Wall Street Journal [subscription required] reported that Schultz has been aggressively micro-managing Starbucks since he took over. The Journal notes that before Starbucks launched its new Pike Place Roast in April, Schultz selected which redesigned version of the old logo to use. As the promotional campaign neared completion, he decided it needed more warmth and called for revisions. He rewrote the press-release headline.

Neither MSNBC nor The Journal fingered Schultz as the barista who put the whole milk in the Olsen's lattes. So we await the nameless barista's fate.

Peter Cohan is President of Peter S. Cohan & Associates. He also teaches management at Babson College and edits The Cohan Letter. He has no financial interest in Starbucks securities.