Starbucks certainly has a diverse clientel

[mike dixon]

I agree the quality of the coffee at Starbucks isn't anything special--my neighborhood's cafes have significantly better coffee. Starbucks doesn't let employees show their tattoos, either To Starbucks' credit, though, they do provide excellent benefits for their employees (even part timers), so the claims of corporate greed may be overstated.<P>

<center><img src="http://mikedixonphotography.com/carlyfido.jpg"><br>

<i>the girls are prettier at Fido . . .</i></center>

[patricks]

Mike, can i have a double shot of that please... ;-)

 

Seriously, my beef isn't so much about corporate greed but rather about the sameness of the urban landscape. in my dream world, different cities/places, look differently, have their own culture and history. it is about individuality, not about predicatability and consistency.

[absinthe]

I agree with Dean... Starbucks acts far more responsibly towards the environment than a vast majority of other retail food companies... and they aren't horrid to their employees on a company level. On a corporate level, they are a model of how a company should behave in these matters.

 

However... they do have a habit of picking on the little guy. They sue mom & pop companies with similar names... even if its their family name & they existed long before Starbucks went national, let alone global. The small mom & pop shop is of no threat to them yet they still choose to bully such places & throw their financial might behind such tactics.

 

There is also the "sameness" factor. This speeks more about the US population than about the corporations because we allow these companies to invade our main streets and our eclectic parts of town & we then as a nation shop and give them our business. It disgusts me that Chelsae in NYC has essentially turned into an outdoor mall, but those stores are succeeding due to the flocks of customers who choose Crate & Barrel and The Renovation Store over smaller, privately owned shops.

[EricM]

�agree with Dean... Starbucks acts far more responsibly towards the environment than a vast majority of other retail food companies... and they aren't horrid to their employees on a company level. On a corporate level, they are a model of how a company should behave in these matters.�

 

That�s ridiculous, start reading Adbusters. Starbucks is no different than Mcdonalds going into Brazil and deforesting for beef burgers. With the advertising revenue of Starbucks, you wont hear about the depletion of soil in asia for this new crop, rendering it useless, and unable to return to traditional rice crops. The IMF is lending thousands for coffee plantations to poor farmers, only to have most farmers finding their land reposed a few years later due to failure. They're not only damaging the environment for a quick bourgeoisie �buzz� over here, their decimating cultures that have been doing quite fine for thousands of years over there. Starbucks is not the happy �green� company you�ve been marketed too.

[beau 1664876222]

Well, I don't want to come off like Mr. Molotov Cocktail, because in fact corporate America has been good to me in many ways, and there are many companies more evil than Starbucks. I just choose not to get my coffee from them (and I wish more people would do the same). If nothing else, the trend toward fewer and fewer conglomerates controlling more and more of the marketplace is a bad, bad thing.

 

I would add that some of you ought to be more critical of what you read in corporate press releases.

[james_.1]

I'm reminded of a chain of burger joints here in Colorado called "Good Times".

Now these guys are a local chain, use 100% local natural Coleman beef, and

actually build a burger that has fresh ingredients. The flat out destroy a

burger from McD's or BK- and have fast and friendly service. I think there are

more popping up here and there. Perhaps there is room for competition

fellas.

[vic_.]

<I>"... the decimation of the environment and third world cultures. ..."</I>

<P>As a card-carrying member of the "Third World," allow me the humble permission to state that these cultures (whatever you mean by that, sounds kinda condescending) are decimating themselves, with or without the aid of Starbucks. Any "culture" is a figment of PBS/National Geographic-type voodoo thinking. Yes, it exists, but is usually preserved by a very small group within the countries, and craved by expatriots who would never set foot in the countries of their origin because they are too Americanized to withstand the rigors of third world life, and cannot do without running hot and cold.

<P>As for the economic arguments put forth, it's very white of you to speculate on the destructive aspects of Starbucks and its ilk. Whatever happened to the concept of free enterprise? Most third world countries have no economies to speak of, and welcome any corporation that brings jobs. Nobody thinks long term there. There are pros and cons of this, and coffee is a small price to pay. There are other multinationals that raise the quality of life, so if "First World" people want to pay $3.00 for a cup of coffee, nobody's holding a gun to their heads to do so. You sound like a bunch of limousine liberals.

[douglas k.]

Some people may differ, but Starbucks' success suggests that many customers are very satisfied with their products and service. Ditto for Wal-Mart, MacDonald's, etc.

 

Personally, I have no problem with these chains moving into other nations. If downtown Baghdad had some Starbucks and MacDonald's, our delusionary pro-capitalist President probably would not have been so eager to bomb Iraq.

[Robin Smith]

"You sound like a bunch of limousine liberals."

 

Amazingly, I agree with Vic! There really is something perverse about the hate that Starbucks generates. If Peets had become the most famous coffee shop in the world then all of you would complaining about it instead of Starbucks.

 

Harvey is right about their capuccino. A better approach to what I consider the real thing is their latte, but this is all about taste, not the company themselves.

 

The curious thing also is that the Starbucks phenomenon has also encouraged other shops to cash in on the Starbucks idea too and they now exist as a kind of post-Starbucks often in places where Starbucks don't want to go or because they have not discovered it yet. They sell the idea of a "European" cafe idea but withoout actually being Starbucks.

 

As to Patrick's complaints about homogenization you are basically wanting to return to a mythical earlier age where nations really were different. So do I in a way too, but Starbucks is a tiny part of what has happened to the world since WW2, it is absurd to be so critical of them. Take the Nyhavn in Copenhagen pictured above. It is certainly not anything other than a total tourist experience - it has been that way for at least 20 years - way before Starbucks was even a twinkle in anyone's eye.

[patricks]

Robin et al,

there is nothing "mythical" about nation/places being different - it is a real fact! Coffee might be a global favorite pass-time, but they way it is consumed is definitely different depending on where you go in the world. To [over]generalize, Americans like to consume it while driving, an Italian work day, even at a high tech company, usually start by awaiting the arrival of your colleagues and you simply stroll down to the local place for a standing shot of your favorite black caffein, Swedes drink it in the afternoon with smal biscuits at the Konditori, in the northern parts actually by pouring on the assiette/plate and then putting a cube of sugar between the lips (don't ask me why), and so forth. Just don't tell me that the world and the customs around it are the same every where!

 

Sure, the world is getting "smaller" as more and more people travel, information is readily available at our fingertips via internet, and globalization in general are bringing products/services to far away corners of the world. I'm not saying that Starbucks is driving this phenomenon alone, but it was rather the discussion at hand. I personally just don't like being confronted with the same consumer experience everywhere I go in the world. I wouldn't dream of visiting a Starbucks if I were in Paris, Tokyo or Stockholm, I'd look for the local tradition instead.

[Allen Herbert]

Starbucks, a commercial enterprise. A place for the chattering classes. Suits.

 

Try a French/Italian cafe. The real world, with real people.

[beau 1664876222]

Well, I might be a "limousine liberal" but I'm not falling for the half-baked economics that says a corporation's success is necessarily due to "free enterprise" or anything like it. Broadly speaking, most successful corporations (and many people) accumulate money by finding ways to defeat the workings of free markets in one way or another. Usually that involves introducing frictions through various kinds of monopoly power, capturing legal and regulatory apparatus, etc. etc. Anyway, I have a lot of respect for Magic Johnson, who happens to be the world's only Starbucks franchisee.

[douglas k.]

"...but I'm not falling for the half-baked economics that says a corporation's success is necessarily due to "free enterprise" or anything like it. Broadly speaking, most successful corporations (and many people) accumulate money by finding ways to defeat the workings of free markets in one way or another."

 

Certainly you are correct about the sources of much business profit. While business success does sometimes result from owners' abilities to limit competition, it more often (IMO) results from their abilities to efficiently satisfy consumers' desires. And I have never read anything about Starbucks that suggests they have succeeded through manipulations, so am concluding that they simply offer products and prices that many consumers find appealing. What evidence do you have suggesting that they have illegally quashed competition?

[vic_.]

<I>"... Broadly speaking, most successful corporations (and many people) accumulate money by finding ways to defeat the workings of free markets in one way or another. Usually that involves introducing frictions through various kinds of monopoly power, capturing legal and regulatory apparatus, etc. etc. ..."</I>

<P>Broadly speaking, this is balderdash. Pure leftist propoganda, without any basis in fact. To say "most" is a gross exaggeration.

[Allen Herbert]

Abilities to efficiently satisfy consumers' desires.

 

If you tell folks enough times thought the media, they will believe anything. Even folks paying 3 dollars for a cup of coffee in the third world. What a sad thought.

[t_farrell]

<i>Why is it when companies become successful they get attacked? This is a very European phenomenon and is often intimately connected with anti-Americanism (unless you are British and then success is always attacked whenever it appears)</I>

 

Robin - your paranoia is not welcomed here. I have travelled extensively in the States and could easily say that, it seems in my experience, all Americans are fat, self-indulgent, oblivious of (and insensitive to) other cultures. Having had a broad experience of the world I realise that while this might seem to be true it is in fact untrue. However, your statement on the Europeans and British are making me reconsider.

[t_farrell]

Sorry that was Patrick - apologies

[t_farrell]

No it was Robin. What a day!

[patricks]

See, I've been arguing that a edit function to one's own posts would be darn handy here! :-) Regardless, I tend to share the sentiment...

[hadji_singh]

Personally, I'm not a fan of Starbucks coffee (which I consider horribly overpriced).

What I don't like about them is that they take over entire neighborhoods. I can think

of at least two places in Manhattan where you can stand on a corner and be within a

block of three Starbucks. Manhattan has become a mall and Starbucks is a contributor

to this.

[Allen Herbert]

anti-Americanism (unless you are British and then success is always attacked whenever it appears)

 

Most Brits are not Anti- American. The real world. But, unlike most, they know when they are being sold to. They like to make folks aware of that fact. Of course, that does not stop them buying the product.

[james_.1]

*yawn*

[Allen Herbert]

I think James has just filled his nappie. Usually happens when he gets tired and bored. Can understand why he's bored.

[terry_rory]

I thought this was all about somewhere to drink a Coffee.

 

I am with Harvey on this one. My local Ottakars bookshop has a "Costa Coffee". Very nice with a chocolate brownie and a Cappucino, on a day off, when the weather is awful outside, to buy a good book and sit for a hour and get lost in it. Who cares if they are a big national chain? The scabby greasy little cafes they are replacing deserve to go to the wall. (Along with the filth they used to serve up as tea and coffee.)

 

Someone comes along and gives me nice surroundings, pleasant staff, good coffee, tempting brownies AND and a sofa with a few thousand books to peruse thrown in then I wave goodbye, cheerfully, to all those greasy, smokey, 'caffs' with their resentful staff and smell of burnt fat and acrid tea. The sort of places with clientele who would like they wanted to beat you to a pulp if you pulled something to read out a bag. Unless it was that days copy of the 'Sun'.

[Allen Herbert]

copy of the 'Sun'.

 

Actually, i heard that Rupert was going to buy, Starbucks. He's sort of place. The mindless. Bored with the greasy spoon places, the intellectual elite have moved there.

 

Of course they don't read the Sun, only read the Mail. Intellectually challenging, has long words, and a crossword puzzle.

 

See, they are proper clever!