coffee-forum.net
Promoting coffee discussion.

Main
Date: 08 Mar 2007 15:28:44
From: Bradley B.
Subject: Starbucks strategy unchanged after memo: exec

http://www.reuters.com/article/Food07/idUSN0722832020070307


a pertinent quote:

On Wednesday, Gass said it was unlikely that Starbucks would ever do
away with the automatic machines.

"Our customers have helped lead us to where we are today," Gass said.
"They want their beverage in under three minutes."




 
Date: 09 Mar 2007 11:27:51
From: Dan Bollinger
Subject: Re: Starbucks strategy unchanged after memo: exec
> On Wednesday, Gass said it was unlikely that Starbucks would ever do
> away with the automatic machines.
>
> "Our customers have helped lead us to where we are today," Gass said.
> "They want their beverage in under three minutes."

I think people need to consider that the purpose of the memo had nothing to do
with its subject, but may be part of a larger, political, corporate strategy
having to do with running the company, and not the products or services
themselves.

Dan



 
Date: 09 Mar 2007 07:36:56
From: ramboorider@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Starbucks strategy unchanged after memo: exec
The other thing to keep in mind is that damn near nobody goes into a
Starbucks for a straight shot of espresso. With a few ounces of
steamed milk involved, the charred shot at the bottom of the cup from
a Starbucks super-auto is reasonably tolerable. A shot would be
terrible, but who orders shots? That's just not part of their ket.
Is it? I've never seen anyone get a straight shot in one of their
shops and I used to get coffee there fairly often before I got INTO
this stuff.

So I think their strategy makes sense for them. It OBVIOUSLY makes
sense for them.

-Ray



 
Date: 09 Mar 2007 07:25:33
From: John S.
Subject: Re: Starbucks strategy unchanged after memo: exec
On 9, 9:46 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...@cox.net > wrote:
> John S. wrote:
> > On 8, 10:28 am, Bradley B. <spama...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >>http://www.reuters.com/article/Food07/idUSN0722832020070307
>
> >> a pertinent quote:
>
> >> On Wednesday, Gass said it was unlikely that Starbucks would ever do
> >> away with the automatic machines.
>
> > It only makes sense for a company with 13,000 coffee shops and plans
> > to open over 2,000 new ones annually to automate as much as possible.
> > Their success shows the large cost of training that many real baristas
> > would probably not have much impact on sales. And manual espresso
> > machines would slow the production line even more than the mixing of
> > frapaccino drinks already has.
>
> > Of more concern is the comment: "In the memo, Schultz warned that
> > measures used to fuel Starbucks' rapid expansion over the last decade
> > threatened to "commoditize" the brand.
>
> > For instance, he said the introduction of automatic espresso machines
> > had made service faster, but had removed "much of the romance and
> > theater that was in play" with traditional espresso makers, which
> > required baristas to pull each espresso shot themselves."
>
> > I have to wonder if the CEO operates in an information vacuum. Anyone
> > who has been in a Starbucks in the past 15 years would realize in an
> > instant that their products have been commoditized for a long time.
> > As with McDonalds hamburgers, it would be impossible to run a chain of
> > 13,000 coffee outlets efficiently without a lot of the standardization
> > that leads to coffee products becoming sterile commodities.
>
> > I will continue to enjoy an espresso pulled by a barista who clearly
> > knows what he is doing. The result is always full of flavor and aroma
> > that does not require sugar to overcome the throat-grabbing bitterness
> > of a starbucks product.
>
> The problem is _finding_ such a barista if you live in one of the
> coffee-impoverished regions of the world.

That's the point - there are relatively few knowlegable baristas. And
the good ones will likely be attracted to localities where there is a
big demand for their services.

Because there are not enough baristas to go around Starbucks, Caribou
and all the other chain stores have to use other methods of creating
coffee products. The chains produce a consistent-if-average espresso
quickly on automated machines that only require the operator to
properly position the cup.

At some point Starbucks will have to automate the blending and mixing
of their slushy and iced drinks to keep the cash register line
moving. Those products are so labor intensive that several
consecutive orders can really back the line up.

>
> >> "Our customers have helped lead us to where we are today," Gass said.
> >> "They want their beverage in under three minutes."
>
> --
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -




 
Date: 09 Mar 2007 05:55:00
From: John S.
Subject: Re: Starbucks strategy unchanged after memo: exec
On 8, 10:28 am, Bradley B. <spama...@127.0.0.1 > wrote:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/Food07/idUSN0722832020070307
>
> a pertinent quote:
>
> On Wednesday, Gass said it was unlikely that Starbucks would ever do
> away with the automatic machines.

It only makes sense for a company with 13,000 coffee shops and plans
to open over 2,000 new ones annually to automate as much as possible.
Their success shows the large cost of training that many real baristas
would probably not have much impact on sales. And manual espresso
machines would slow the production line even more than the mixing of
frapaccino drinks already has.

Of more concern is the comment: "In the memo, Schultz warned that
measures used to fuel Starbucks' rapid expansion over the last decade
threatened to "commoditize" the brand.

For instance, he said the introduction of automatic espresso machines
had made service faster, but had removed "much of the romance and
theater that was in play" with traditional espresso makers, which
required baristas to pull each espresso shot themselves."

I have to wonder if the CEO operates in an information vacuum. Anyone
who has been in a Starbucks in the past 15 years would realize in an
instant that their products have been commoditized for a long time.
As with McDonalds hamburgers, it would be impossible to run a chain of
13,000 coffee outlets efficiently without a lot of the standardization
that leads to coffee products becoming sterile commodities.

I will continue to enjoy an espresso pulled by a barista who clearly
knows what he is doing. The result is always full of flavor and aroma
that does not require sugar to overcome the throat-grabbing bitterness
of a starbucks product.





>
> "Our customers have helped lead us to where we are today," Gass said.
> "They want their beverage in under three minutes."




  
Date: 10 Mar 2007 16:31:28
From: Espressopithecus (Java Man)
Subject: Re: Starbucks strategy unchanged after memo: exec
In article <1173448500.362711.314680@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com >,
hjsjms@cs.com says...
> I have to wonder if the CEO operates in an information vacuum. Anyone
> who has been in a Starbucks in the past 15 years would realize in an
> instant that their products have been commoditized for a long time.
>
When Schultz warns about the possibility of commoditizing the brand, I'm
pretty sure he means eroding the company's ability to charge premium
prices because the stores and products have the Starbucks name on them.
From that perspective, the products have not been commoditized at all.
If they were, people would not be willing to pay premium prices for the
product -- yet hundreds of millions around the world currently pony up
premium prices every day. That is the power of the brand -- people are
willing to pay a premium because of the label, not because of the
intrinsic quality of the product itself.

Rick


  
Date: 09 Mar 2007 09:46:41
From: J. Clarke
Subject: Re: Starbucks strategy unchanged after memo: exec
John S. wrote:
> On 8, 10:28 am, Bradley B. <spama...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/Food07/idUSN0722832020070307
>>
>> a pertinent quote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, Gass said it was unlikely that Starbucks would ever do
>> away with the automatic machines.
>
> It only makes sense for a company with 13,000 coffee shops and plans
> to open over 2,000 new ones annually to automate as much as possible.
> Their success shows the large cost of training that many real baristas
> would probably not have much impact on sales. And manual espresso
> machines would slow the production line even more than the mixing of
> frapaccino drinks already has.
>
> Of more concern is the comment: "In the memo, Schultz warned that
> measures used to fuel Starbucks' rapid expansion over the last decade
> threatened to "commoditize" the brand.
>
> For instance, he said the introduction of automatic espresso machines
> had made service faster, but had removed "much of the romance and
> theater that was in play" with traditional espresso makers, which
> required baristas to pull each espresso shot themselves."
>
> I have to wonder if the CEO operates in an information vacuum. Anyone
> who has been in a Starbucks in the past 15 years would realize in an
> instant that their products have been commoditized for a long time.
> As with McDonalds hamburgers, it would be impossible to run a chain of
> 13,000 coffee outlets efficiently without a lot of the standardization
> that leads to coffee products becoming sterile commodities.
>
> I will continue to enjoy an espresso pulled by a barista who clearly
> knows what he is doing. The result is always full of flavor and aroma
> that does not require sugar to overcome the throat-grabbing bitterness
> of a starbucks product.

The problem is _finding_ such a barista if you live in one of the
coffee-impoverished regions of the world.

>> "Our customers have helped lead us to where we are today," Gass said.
>> "They want their beverage in under three minutes."

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)




 
Date: 09 Mar 2007 04:42:17
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Starbucks strategy unchanged after memo: exec
On 8, 11:40 am, notbob <not...@nothome.com > wrote:
> The superautos have definitely provided *$ with a consistently decent
> product. A four state sampling proved this to me. When they still
> had LMs, the chances of getting even a tolerable double shot were slim
> to none.

I'm with you. If I have to drink coffee at Starby's, I'd rather have
consistently mediocre stuff from a super than absolutely lousy stuff
from an LM with a student pilot.



 
Date: 08 Mar 2007 10:54:22
From: J. Clarke
Subject: Re: Starbucks strategy unchanged after memo: exec
Bradley B. wrote:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/Food07/idUSN0722832020070307
>
>
> a pertinent quote:
>
> On Wednesday, Gass said it was unlikely that Starbucks would ever do
> away with the automatic machines.
>
> "Our customers have helped lead us to where we are today," Gass said.
> "They want their beverage in under three minutes."

One does wonder if he has ever once in his life pulled a shot himself.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)




  
Date: 08 Mar 2007 16:25:04
From: Robert Harmon
Subject: Re: Starbucks strategy unchanged after memo: exec
Howdy John!
What's that have to do with anything? I know a guy who owns one of the most
successful restaurants in DC & he can't boil an egg. But he knows what he
likes & he knows how to translate that into a menu his customers love.

Would it make sense for *$ to strive for that perfect shot only to have
their customers tell them it tastes like crap, because that's exactly what
happens when you offer great espresso to most folks. I know because it
happens all the time here at Casa Harmon, or at least whenever I try to
educate the pallets of visitors by serving my best home roasted coffee,
drawn into a 2 oz demitasse.

*$'s customers want what they know, not what they're paying for. *$'s would
be very foolish to change the formula of their success as long as the
customer, who we know is 'always' right, keeps plopping their cash on the
counter.
--
Robert (If it ain't broke, don't fix it!) Harmon
http://tinyurl.com/pou2y
http://tinyurl.com/psfob
http://tinyurl.com/fkd6r

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net > wrote in message
news:espbus01ebh@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> One does wonder if he has ever once in his life pulled a shot himself.
> --
> --John




   
Date: 10 Mar 2007 13:43:00
From: Natalie Drest
Subject: Re: Starbucks strategy unchanged after memo: exec

"Robert Harmon" <r_h_harmon@Zhotmail.com > wrote in message
news:ANWHh.10451$Jl.4707@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> ... whenever I try to educate the pallets...

While you're educating your guests on the finer points of efficient
warehouse storage, why not educate their palates as well by offering them a
fine coffee-based beverage?

;-)




    
Date: 10 Mar 2007 03:36:02
From: Robert Harmon
Subject: Re: Starbucks strategy unchanged after memo: exec
Busted! But, if I was perfect why in the hell would I hang around in this
group?
--
Robert (Gig 'em!) Harmon
http://tinyurl.com/pou2y
http://tinyurl.com/psfob
http://tinyurl.com/fkd6r
"Natalie Drest" <fugeddaboudit@notarealemailaddress.net > wrote in message
news:45f21a40@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> "Robert Harmon" <r_h_harmon@Zhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ANWHh.10451$Jl.4707@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> ... whenever I try to educate the pallets...
>
> While you're educating your guests on the finer points of efficient
> warehouse storage, why not educate their palates as well by offering them
> a fine coffee-based beverage?
>
> ;-)
>




   
Date: 08 Mar 2007 10:40:51
From: notbob
Subject: Re: Starbucks strategy unchanged after memo: exec
On 2007-03-08, Robert Harmon <r_h_harmon@Zhotmail.com > wrote:

> Would it make sense for *$ to strive for that perfect shot only to have
> their customers tell them it tastes like crap.....

The superautos have definitely provided *$ with a consistently decent
product. A four state sampling proved this to me. When they still
had LMs, the chances of getting even a tolerable double shot were slim
to none.

nb