| |
Main
Date: 09 Nov 2006 01:13:25
From:
Subject: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
I don't get it.
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 17:53:40
From: Puester
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
no_awkward_feelings_in_my_back@yahoo.com wrote:
> I don't get it.
>
IMO:
They have brainwashed an entire generation
Their coffee is awful
Their coffee is too expensive
They have put too many local shops out of business
Like Chicken Man, "they're everywhere, they're everywhere"
gloria p
who has had exactly 3 cups of Starbucks coffee
which was 2 too many
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 09:41:38
From: Bill Patterson
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
no_awkward_feelings_in_my_back@yahoo.com wrote:
> I don't get it.
Very simple: it's Gresham's law applied to coffee: bad coffee drives
out good. For every Starbucks there could be a place making and
serving *good* coffee instead.
In my experience Starbucks is liked by people who don't really like
coffee, but like the fringe effects -- the foam and the steam and the
ritual of coffee, and the social atmosphere of the place. If it's
"just the coffee, ma'am," Starbucks probably don't do it for you --
particularly after your palate becomes more experienced.
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 09:03:47
From: John S.
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
Heh...I used to think Tasters Choice was gourmet coffee... And it was
great at the time!
ls1m...@gmail.com wrote:
> I've concluded over the years, that, with coffee, it's largely what
> you're used to that determines what good coffee is. In an earlier
> life, my then soon to be future wife introduced me to coffee. It was
> Instant Maxwell House (pre-'crystals'). Two heaping tsps of sugar and
> lots of milk was just what the doctor ordered. I drank that for a few
> years and everything else was sludge. For purely financial reasons, I
> eventually switched to Eight O'Clock instant. I drank that for a few
> years and everything else was sludge. Then came college and my
> aluminum electric percolator. I'd brew a pot of canned 'Chock Full of
> Nuts' ("better coffee, a millionaire's money can't buy"), add powdered
> milk (still had the financial thing going on) and sugar to the pot,
> take it up to my room, plug it back in to keep it hot, and enjoy it for
> two or three hours while laboring over the day's Math problems. I
> drank that for a few years and everything else was sludge. I later
> went through numerous periods of vending machine coffee, free Folgers
> at work, and on, and on, and on. I even spent a few years working the
> graveyard shift at a family restaurant, surviving on Stewart's Blend
> (not too bad, in hindsight). At each stage, anything other than what I
> was drinking at the time was sludge.
>
> Then came *$. WOW! A coffee that actually had the power to open my
> eyes in the morning! Not from the caffeine, but rather from the all
> out assault on my taste buds. I drank that for a few years and, you
> know - the sludge thing, again. Then about seven years ago, I chanced
> upon a Mellita AromaRoast at my local Value City Dept Store for
> something like $7. I brought it home, roasted the decade old beans
> that were in the box, ground them and threw them in the French Press,
> and had a cup of heaven the likes of which I had never tasted before!
> I was actually tasting the aroma that surrounded the coffee grinder at
> the A&P (I'm not sure how else to describe it). I've been roasting,
> blending, dripping, pressing, tamping, extracting, tweaking, etc. ever
> since, and, frankly, everything else is sludge.
>
> I had occasion to drink *$ recently while out of town at a convention
> (that's what they served at the buffet). It's sludge. But that
> doesn't make me angry with *$. It simply narrows my choices.
>
> John S. wrote:
> > That's a reasonable approach since coffee drinking is a social
> > experience. It's amazing how far we have come in refining our coffee
> > drinking though. We enjoyed many an evening of cards with coffee
> > brewed in a Corning Percolator complete with cornflowers on the side.
> > A few years ago we tried it once more for old times sake. I discovered
> > then what re-boiling coffee does to flavor.
> >
> > I have a close family member who I truly love. However she uses those
> > noxious flavored beans to serve coffee that is just appalling. The
> > aroma makes my nostrils contract so I opt for a cup of tea as well.
> >
> >
> > > Harry Moos wrote:
> > > I don't "hate" Folgers, Butternut, Maxwell House, etc. either, but I don't
> > > want to drink them when something better is available. But if you serve
> > > them and include me in your group, I'll drink them and enjoy your company.
> > > However, some people brew coffee that is undrinkable in any company. We
> > > have a friend with an aluminum percolator whose coffee should be indicted;
> > > she drinks tea herself. I ask for tea now when we visit.
> > >
> > > "John S." <hjsjms@cs.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1163083072.143563.138900@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > no_awkward_feelings_in_my_back@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >> I don't get it.
> > > >
> > > > A few people may dislike Starbucks, but I have yet to find someone who
> > > > extends that dislike to hating the company. Or their coffee. I can
> > > > guaranty you that a much larger number of people enjoy both visiting
> > > > Starbucks locations and partaking of their many coffee products.
> > > > Otherwise how would they have come to dominate the retail coffee shop
> > > > market.
> > > >
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 08:58:54
From:
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
I've concluded over the years, that, with coffee, it's largely what
you're used to that determines what good coffee is. In an earlier
life, my then soon to be future wife introduced me to coffee. It was
Instant Maxwell House (pre-'crystals'). Two heaping tsps of sugar and
lots of milk was just what the doctor ordered. I drank that for a few
years and everything else was sludge. For purely financial reasons, I
eventually switched to Eight O'Clock instant. I drank that for a few
years and everything else was sludge. Then came college and my
aluminum electric percolator. I'd brew a pot of canned 'Chock Full of
Nuts' ("better coffee, a millionaire's money can't buy"), add powdered
milk (still had the financial thing going on) and sugar to the pot,
take it up to my room, plug it back in to keep it hot, and enjoy it for
two or three hours while laboring over the day's Math problems. I
drank that for a few years and everything else was sludge. I later
went through numerous periods of vending machine coffee, free Folgers
at work, and on, and on, and on. I even spent a few years working the
graveyard shift at a family restaurant, surviving on Stewart's Blend
(not too bad, in hindsight). At each stage, anything other than what I
was drinking at the time was sludge.
Then came *$. WOW! A coffee that actually had the power to open my
eyes in the morning! Not from the caffeine, but rather from the all
out assault on my taste buds. I drank that for a few years and, you
know - the sludge thing, again. Then about seven years ago, I chanced
upon a Mellita AromaRoast at my local Value City Dept Store for
something like $7. I brought it home, roasted the decade old beans
that were in the box, ground them and threw them in the French Press,
and had a cup of heaven the likes of which I had never tasted before!
I was actually tasting the aroma that surrounded the coffee grinder at
the A&P (I'm not sure how else to describe it). I've been roasting,
blending, dripping, pressing, tamping, extracting, tweaking, etc. ever
since, and, frankly, everything else is sludge.
I had occasion to drink *$ recently while out of town at a convention
(that's what they served at the buffet). It's sludge. But that
doesn't make me angry with *$. It simply narrows my choices.
John S. wrote:
> That's a reasonable approach since coffee drinking is a social
> experience. It's amazing how far we have come in refining our coffee
> drinking though. We enjoyed many an evening of cards with coffee
> brewed in a Corning Percolator complete with cornflowers on the side.
> A few years ago we tried it once more for old times sake. I discovered
> then what re-boiling coffee does to flavor.
>
> I have a close family member who I truly love. However she uses those
> noxious flavored beans to serve coffee that is just appalling. The
> aroma makes my nostrils contract so I opt for a cup of tea as well.
>
>
> > Harry Moos wrote:
> > I don't "hate" Folgers, Butternut, Maxwell House, etc. either, but I don't
> > want to drink them when something better is available. But if you serve
> > them and include me in your group, I'll drink them and enjoy your company.
> > However, some people brew coffee that is undrinkable in any company. We
> > have a friend with an aluminum percolator whose coffee should be indicted;
> > she drinks tea herself. I ask for tea now when we visit.
> >
> > "John S." <hjsjms@cs.com> wrote in message
> > news:1163083072.143563.138900@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > no_awkward_feelings_in_my_back@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >> I don't get it.
> > >
> > > A few people may dislike Starbucks, but I have yet to find someone who
> > > extends that dislike to hating the company. Or their coffee. I can
> > > guaranty you that a much larger number of people enjoy both visiting
> > > Starbucks locations and partaking of their many coffee products.
> > > Otherwise how would they have come to dominate the retail coffee shop
> > > market.
> > >
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 07:26:42
From: John S.
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
That's a reasonable approach since coffee drinking is a social
experience. It's amazing how far we have come in refining our coffee
drinking though. We enjoyed many an evening of cards with coffee
brewed in a Corning Percolator complete with cornflowers on the side.
A few years ago we tried it once more for old times sake. I discovered
then what re-boiling coffee does to flavor.
I have a close family member who I truly love. However she uses those
noxious flavored beans to serve coffee that is just appalling. The
aroma makes my nostrils contract so I opt for a cup of tea as well.
> Harry Moos wrote:
> I don't "hate" Folgers, Butternut, Maxwell House, etc. either, but I don't
> want to drink them when something better is available. But if you serve
> them and include me in your group, I'll drink them and enjoy your company.
> However, some people brew coffee that is undrinkable in any company. We
> have a friend with an aluminum percolator whose coffee should be indicted;
> she drinks tea herself. I ask for tea now when we visit.
>
> "John S." <hjsjms@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:1163083072.143563.138900@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > no_awkward_feelings_in_my_back@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> I don't get it.
> >
> > A few people may dislike Starbucks, but I have yet to find someone who
> > extends that dislike to hating the company. Or their coffee. I can
> > guaranty you that a much larger number of people enjoy both visiting
> > Starbucks locations and partaking of their many coffee products.
> > Otherwise how would they have come to dominate the retail coffee shop
> > market.
> >
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 06:37:52
From: John S.
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
no_awkward_feelings_in_my_back@yahoo.com wrote:
> I don't get it.
A few people may dislike Starbucks, but I have yet to find someone who
extends that dislike to hating the company. Or their coffee. I can
guaranty you that a much larger number of people enjoy both visiting
Starbucks locations and partaking of their many coffee products.
Otherwise how would they have come to dominate the retail coffee shop
market.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 09:04:08
From: Harry Moos
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
I don't "hate" Folgers, Butternut, Maxwell House, etc. either, but I don't
want to drink them when something better is available. But if you serve
them and include me in your group, I'll drink them and enjoy your company.
However, some people brew coffee that is undrinkable in any company. We
have a friend with an aluminum percolator whose coffee should be indicted;
she drinks tea herself. I ask for tea now when we visit.
"John S." <hjsjms@cs.com > wrote in message
news:1163083072.143563.138900@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> no_awkward_feelings_in_my_back@yahoo.com wrote:
>> I don't get it.
>
> A few people may dislike Starbucks, but I have yet to find someone who
> extends that dislike to hating the company. Or their coffee. I can
> guaranty you that a much larger number of people enjoy both visiting
> Starbucks locations and partaking of their many coffee products.
> Otherwise how would they have come to dominate the retail coffee shop
> market.
>
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 08:20:02
From: Dan Bollinger
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
>I don't get it.
It's like the difference between McDonald's and a great steakhouse. No one
really expects a chain restaurant to be as good as a sole-proprietor restaurant
with a great chef.
What happens here is that people take it personally. What's going on is that
they WANT Starbucks to be better than it is. When Starbucks doesn't meet
people's expectations they piss on it. It's not Starbucks fault, they are doing
exactly what they set out to do. The problem is the mistaken expectations.
imho, Dan
|
| | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 07:29:25
From: notbob
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
On 2006-11-09, Dan Bollinger <danNObollinger@insightSPAMbb.com > wrote:
> people's expectations they piss on it. It's not Starbucks fault, they are doing
> exactly what they set out to do. The problem is the mistaken expectations.
Well, of course. It's my fault Starbucks coffee tastes like crap. I
should have known.
nb
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 07:40:11
From: notbob
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
On 2006-11-09, notbob <notbob@nothome.com > wrote:
> Well, of course. It's my fault Starbucks coffee tastes like crap. I
> should have known.
Hey, Lewis Black was right. It all fits.
Starbucks sucks. My fault. --------------- > End of the Universe!!
nb
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 08:36:27
From: Dan Bollinger
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
>> people's expectations they piss on it. It's not Starbucks fault, they are
>> doing
>> exactly what they set out to do. The problem is the mistaken expectations.
>
> Well, of course. It's my fault Starbucks coffee tastes like crap. I
> should have known.
Sarcasm this early in the morning? Time to change to decaf. The question was
about people hating, not coffee quality. db
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 06:34:56
From: DougW
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
no_awkward_feelings_in_my_back wrote:
> I don't get it.
I don't _hate_ *$ but my own opinion.
1) they charge too much.
2) the coffee is not that great if you have
ever had real good espresso or cappas.
3) they spread like a plague.
4) they use predatory contracts to choke out
all competition rather than rely on selling
a quality product at a reasonable price.
--
DougW
|
| | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 07:23:48
From: Mike Hartigan
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
In article <IhF4h.12457$tH2.3841@newsfe20.lga >,
post.replies@invalid.address says...
> no_awkward_feelings_in_my_back wrote:
> > I don't get it.
>
> I don't _hate_ *$ but my own opinion.
>
> 1) they charge too much.
If you don't like the product (I read ahead), then any amount is too
much, so I'm not even sure what you mean by this. They charge as
much as their customers are willing to pay - that's how businesses
become financially successful - and it's hard to argue with success.
Remember, *$ is in business to make money, just like any other
company. And they're pretty good at it. Altruism, while noble, has
no place in business.
> 2) the coffee is not that great if you have
> ever had real good espresso or cappas.
They are putting out a product that people want and are willing to
pay for. It doesn't matter that many people, myself included, don't
like it. I, personally, don't like raisins. But I wouldn't chastise
the Sun Maid folks for producing and selling them.
> 3) they spread like a plague.
That's what financially successful businesses do. It tends to bring
more financial success.
> 4) they use predatory contracts to choke out
> all competition...
???
> ...rather than rely on selling
> a quality product at a reasonable price.
You already said that (see #1 and #2, above)
--
-Mike
|
| | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 16:07:41
From: VicTek
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
"DougW" <post.replies@invalid.address > wrote in message
news:IhF4h.12457$tH2.3841@newsfe20.lga...
> no_awkward_feelings_in_my_back wrote:
>> I don't get it.
>
> I don't _hate_ *$ but my own opinion.
>
> 1) they charge too much.
> 2) the coffee is not that great if you have
> ever had real good espresso or cappas.
> 3) they spread like a plague.
> 4) they use predatory contracts to choke out
> all competition rather than rely on selling
> a quality product at a reasonable price.
As far as I can tell, everyone charges about the same for coffee drinks,
including the local restaurants.
When you say "the coffee is not that great" what are you comparing it to?
It is far better than any local restaurant/cafe in my area where the coffee
carafes sit on hot plates indefinitely.
Regarding "spreading like a plague" that's because they are doing many
things "right", such as serving coffee-to-go in cardboard cups instead of
styrofoam, and making sure their drip coffee is fresher by observing a
maximum "one hour" rule (after which whatever is left gets tossed).
Generally the folks are friendly and smart - by that I mean they listen and
remember complex drink orders, and can make proper change. In many fast
food places I can't trust they will even get the order right. The only
places where I've gotten coffee noticeably better than Starbucks have been
expensive restaurants where they prepared the coffee with the same care as
their great food. Unfortunately, it's not practical for me to get my coffee
at such places regularly <g >.
If you want coffee that's made to your personal specs and is significantly
more affordable than Starbucks I think you have to make it yourself. Just
MHO of course. YMMV
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 19:27:17
From: DougW
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
VicTek wrote:
> As far as I can tell, everyone charges about the same for coffee
> drinks, including the local restaurants.
I can go to any one of four local coffee shops and get a regular
cup of coffee with free refills for 1$. The Red Cup has a great
cappa for only 2.00$ *$ is at least two times that.
http://www.redcupok.com/Menu.html
> When you say "the coffee is not that great" what are you comparing it
> to? It is far better than any local restaurant/cafe in my area where
> the coffee carafes sit on hot plates indefinitely.
I travel on business all over the globe. Northern Italy is still
my Mecca for coffee. My favorite spot was in Pordenone which was
also the best location for gelato.... mmmmmm.. gelato... oddly
enough the best espresso came from the Italian Mensa (chow hall)
on Aviano air base. I tried to find out what beans they used but
the barista said the owner just delivers them in a glass jar each day.
> Regarding "spreading like a plague" that's because they are doing many
> things "right",
Nah.. I mean as in they are literally across the street from each other.
From one spot downtown I can see four *$ locations. The only reason I
can't see the fifth is it's behind a taller building.
They kind of remind me of the movie Demolition Man where "all restaraunts
are taco bell."
--
DougW
|
| | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 13:59:10
From: FERRANTE
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
>2) the coffee is not that great if you have
> ever had real good espresso or cappas.
That is the problem for me. I buy cappuccinos from various places,
coffee shops, gas stations (yes I know they may not be real
cappuccinos, but to me they are sweet and good-the flavored ones, and
quick if I am in a hurry) and restaurants. And I have bought espresso
from several coffee shops and to me they all seem to taste good.
Are there certain things to look for in determining a good espresso or
cappuccino? The espressos that I have had all had creama, they tasted
good, so how else do I judge?
Thanks,
Mark
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 23:02:10
From: Natalie Drest
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
<no_awkward_feelings_in_my_back@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1163063605.929148.46470@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I don't get it.
>
IT's usally only people who have become used to 'quality' espresso, either
from a boutique roaster cafe or made at home, who turn up their noses at
Starbucks- but you could just as well name any of the large coffee chains
instead. Obviously, most people don't mind- but they've probably never
tasted great coffee. Interestingly, here in Melbourne (Australia, not
Florida), where we had Italian coffee culture long before the chains came
over from the U.S., they haven't done so well. There's just too much
competition- there are great 'real' coffee shops on every corner.
THere's something about coffee from the chainsI just don't 'get'; the coffee
almost tastes flavoured. Really, how do they do that?
Coffee made right is a sensory delight; chain coffee is, for me, a (bitter)
disappointment.
People who get enthusiastic about it tend to like to chat about it &
increase their knowledge, so they hang out here- it's not exactly a
representative sample.
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 20:09:55
From: hfw
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
I wince with every dig at Starbucks. Full disclosure: my husband works
there part time since he was driving me crazy being home all day after
his retirement last year.
I enjoy some of the milk drinks, though usually with half the syrup, but
I haven't been happy at all with most of their beans since making
espresso at home. The freshest ones are their plain "espresso roast,"
because they use that for all their milk drinks so the turnover is high;
even so, I do understand the epithet "Charbucks."
That said, I think Starbucks' customer service is first-rate. Several
times over the years they have gone far beyond my expectations on
expensive items (espresso machine, burr grinder, vac pot)--and my
husband says they will make a new, even different, drink at no charge
even if there was nothing wrong with the first and it's just not to your
taste. They are also being good corporate citizens.
Before they arrived here (Plattsburgh, NY, pop. 20,000) six months ago,
there was one coffee place, sort of minimalist atmosphere,
okay-but-not-great coffee and truly undrinkable espresso. They are still
doing fine. Now, in addition to Starbucks, there is another new place
that seems to be doing well. Before Starbucks came, we had heard that
local coffee shops often benefit from their presence, and that seems to
be true here.
--Heidi, who usually drinks tea outside of home
|
| | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 12:23:15
From: Bill (Adopt)
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
In article <4ri1qtFro4j3U1@mid.individual.net >,
hfw <nospam@nospam.com > wrote:
> I wince with every dig at Starbucks. Full disclosure: my husband works
> there part time since he was driving me crazy being home all day after
> his retirement last year.
Hailing from this side of The Pond - and like others around
here who use the nickname of Charbucks for good reason, I've
found the staff in Starbucks of Norwich and Peterborough GB,
(each with pop in excess of 120,000) to be polite, considerate
and helpful in providing needed small equipment that they
in stock and to hand...
First introduction - and play! - with a Mazzer was in the
attic backroom of Starbucks Norwich. You wouldn't believe
the dusting of coffee that hung in the air and clung to
anything bold enough to enter ..or perhaps you would.
Noticeably the staff were not all youngsters ..not older
nor even displaying the sage-like wisdom of elder alties,
but a majority old enough to appreciate and still give the
impression of being enthusiastic about their barista skills...
>--Heidi, who usually drinks tea outside of home
Yep! :))
Tea, apparently for some hormonal/anti-oxident reason, can
be beneficial to many heart problems - unlike a few of the
732+(?) chemical constituents of coffee. Mind ..that only
makes the daily allowable double whatever coffee all the
more delicious for the 23 hours and 45 minutes of lip-lickin'
anticipation!
;))
Bill ZFC
--
Adoption InterLink UK with -=- http://www.billsimpson.com/
Domain Host Orpheus Internet -=- http://www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 08:12:49
From: Dan Bollinger
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
> Tea, apparently for some hormonal/anti-oxident reason, can
> be beneficial to many heart problems - unlike a few of the
> 732+(?) chemical constituents of coffee.
Coffee has 4-5 times the antioxidant levels as green tea.
Dan
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 13:57:21
From: Bill (Adopt)
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
In article <3KadnUHYx8HF58nYnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@insightbb.com >,
Dan Bollinger <danNObollinger@insightSPAMbb.com > wrote:
> > Tea, apparently for some hormonal/anti-oxident reason, can
> > be beneficial to many heart problems - unlike a few of the
> > 732+(?) chemical constituents of coffee.
> Coffee has 4-5 times the antioxidant levels as green tea.
mmm, OK ..yes! :))
..but then there's the killers, (although what they
might be, or might be in my case, I've no idea)... ;))
Coffee's not yet a 'recommended' alternative by the
specialist heart services around here. Not
disbarred altogether, mind, just a warning to keep
consumption within a strict limit and, thankfully,
no more than that..
..and apparently nothing to do with caffeine, either.
Having had the experience of watching an anaesthetist
stick a tiny needle into my arm to noticing, the next
fraction of a second (hours and hours and hours) later,
that lots of pipes and wires were protruding below a
rather neat chest dressing, I don't think I'm going to
debate the issue anytime soon!
..the satisfaction of the next good coffee is something
to be looked forward to ..continually ..day by day ..over
the many coming decades...:))
Bill ZFC
--
Adoption InterLink UK with -=- http://www.billsimpson.com/
Domain Host Orpheus Internet -=- http://www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 16:15:46
From: Jim
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
no_awkward_feelings_in_my_back@yahoo.com wrote:
> I don't get it.
>
Did anybody mention that it's always easiest to hate "number one"?
Personally, I think that they burn their beans. But I should go easy on
criticism since I have one family member that has done quite well on the
stock, and another family member that may join the corporate office in
the near future!
|
| | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 00:58:26
From: AZ Nomad
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:15:46 -0800, Jim <askme@beforeyousend.com > wrote:
>no_awkward_feelings_in_my_back@yahoo.com wrote:
>> I don't get it.
>>
>Did anybody mention that it's always easiest to hate "number one"?
>Personally, I think that they burn their beans. But I should go easy on
>criticism since I have one family member that has done quite well on the
>stock, and another family member that may join the corporate office in
>the near future!
The #1 reason I hear for disliking starbucks has nothing to do with their
success. It is because, as you observe, they roast their beans to within
a minute of being charcoal.
Stock is irrelevant. McDonalds does quite well, but their success doesn't
make them fine dining.
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 21:27:51
From: Jim
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
AZ Nomad wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:15:46 -0800, Jim <askme@beforeyousend.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>no_awkward_feelings_in_my_back@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>>>I don't get it.
>>>
>
>
>>Did anybody mention that it's always easiest to hate "number one"?
>
>
>>Personally, I think that they burn their beans. But I should go easy on
>>criticism since I have one family member that has done quite well on the
>>stock, and another family member that may join the corporate office in
>>the near future!
>
>
> The #1 reason I hear for disliking starbucks has nothing to do with their
> success. It is because, as you observe, they roast their beans to within
> a minute of being charcoal.
I know I can't be the first to think of it, but that's why I call them
CHARbucks.
>
> Stock is irrelevant. McDonalds does quite well, but their success doesn't
> make them fine dining.
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 23:07:04
From: Gary D
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
I don't hate Starbucks but it does piss me off they way they are taking
over every corner and almost every empty space in my area. In a one mile
radius, there are 8 free standing Starbucks in my neighborhood. They
have driven out 3 very good independant coffee shops and have caused 2
exellent restuarants to be taken over by offering them so much money for
their buildings that they couldn't pass up the offer. As far as their
coffee, it must appeal to the masses but I find it bland and burnt.
There is another local coffee chain in our area called Peaberry Coffee
and everything they sell is better than Starbucks. I also don't like
their strong arm tactics. There is a boat builder in our area that has
been building jet boats since the 60's. His last name is Starbuck and
his company was called Starbucks Boats and Starbucks sued him to change
the name and he had to just do it because he couldn't afford the legal
fees. I think the main thing with Starbucks is since they are the
McDonalds of coffee, the masses just automatically go there for coffee
whether they are good or not just like people automatically go to
McDonalds even though are better places to get a burger.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 09:46:06
From: Jim
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
Gary D wrote:
> I don't hate Starbucks but it does piss me off they way they are taking
> over every corner and almost every empty space in my area.
Have you seen "Best in Show"?
Meg Swan: We met at Starbucks. Not at the same Starbucks but we saw each
other at different Starbucks across the street from each other.
In a one mile
> radius, there are 8 free standing Starbucks in my neighborhood. They
> have driven out 3 very good independant coffee shops and have caused 2
> exellent restuarants to be taken over by offering them so much money for
> their buildings that they couldn't pass up the offer. As far as their
> coffee, it must appeal to the masses but I find it bland and burnt.
> There is another local coffee chain in our area called Peaberry Coffee
> and everything they sell is better than Starbucks. I also don't like
> their strong arm tactics. There is a boat builder in our area that has
> been building jet boats since the 60's. His last name is Starbuck and
> his company was called Starbucks Boats and Starbucks sued him to change
> the name and he had to just do it because he couldn't afford the legal
> fees. I think the main thing with Starbucks is since they are the
> McDonalds of coffee, the masses just automatically go there for coffee
> whether they are good or not just like people automatically go to
> McDonalds even though are better places to get a burger.
>
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 12:28:20
From: notbob
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
On 2006-11-10, Jim <askme@beforeyousend.com > wrote:
> Have you seen "Best in Show"?
>
> Meg Swan: We met at Starbucks. Not at the same Starbucks but we saw each
> other at different Starbucks across the street from each other.
Lewis Black's End of the Universe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEOzAFpCmGs
nb
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 10:45:07
From: Jim
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
notbob wrote:
> On 2006-11-10, Jim <askme@beforeyousend.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Have you seen "Best in Show"?
>>
>>Meg Swan: We met at Starbucks. Not at the same Starbucks but we saw each
>>other at different Starbucks across the street from each other.
>
>
> Lewis Black's End of the Universe:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEOzAFpCmGs
>
> nb
There's an office building in Seattle with a Starbucks in the lobby.
And ANOTHER one half way up to the top of the building. In case you
can't wait that extra 20 second elevator trip, I guess.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 06:17:32
From: Paul Vojta
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
In article <12l9emqm7omqta5@corp.supernews.com >,
Jim <askme@beforeyousend.com > wrote:
>Gary D wrote:
>
>> I don't hate Starbucks but it does piss me off they way they are taking
>> over every corner and almost every empty space in my area.
>
>Have you seen "Best in Show"?
>
>Meg Swan: We met at Starbucks. Not at the same Starbucks but we saw each
>other at different Starbucks across the street from each other.
Then there's "The Onion": Starbucks opens in restroom of existing Starbucks.
--Paul Vojta, vojta@math.berkeley.edu
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 07:44:30
From: notbob
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
On 2006-11-10, Gary D <lolajoker@webtv.net > wrote:
> over every corner and almost every empty space in my area. In a one mile
> radius, there are 8 free standing Starbucks in my neighborhood.
You're getting off cheap:
http://chicago.metblogs.com/archives/2005/01/starbucks_densi.phtml
nb
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 08:11:15
From: Dan Bollinger
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
>I don't hate Starbucks but it does piss me off they way they are taking
> over every corner and almost every empty space in my area. In a one mile
> radius, there are 8 free standing Starbucks in my neighborhood.
You don't hate them, you are angry at them.
>They
> have driven out 3 very good independant coffee shops
According to an investigative report written up in Fresh Cup, the addition of a
Starbucks within walking distance of an existing high quality coffee shop will
result in slow sales for a few weeks after the Starbucks opens up and then a 10%
increase of sales after that. I can only surmise that those indies served poorer
coffee than you know who.
> and have caused 2
> exellent restuarants to be taken over by offering them so much money for
> their buildings that they couldn't pass up the offer.
ROFLMAO! 'Taken over?' Taken over is done at gunpoint or threat of broken
kneecaps. 'Bought out' on the other hand is what a smart business person does
when given an offer they 'couldn't pass up.' LOL! I could be so lucky to have
someone give me an offer I couldn't pass up for my business. I could retire this
year instead of ten years from now. LOL!
> As far as their
> coffee, it must appeal to the masses but I find it bland and burnt.
Me, too, but that's beside the point. I think it is an unfortunate American
trait, but we tend to sabotage the leader.
Dan
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 06:53:17
From: Mike Hartigan
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
In article <4934-45541708-295@storefull-3215.bay.webtv.net >,
lolajoker@webtv.net says...
> I don't hate Starbucks but it does piss me off they way they are taking
> over every corner and almost every empty space in my area. In a one mile
> radius, there are 8 free standing Starbucks in my neighborhood. They
> have driven out 3 very good independant coffee shops...
As was pointed out in another post, it wasn't Starbucks who drove
them out, it was the customers who decided that they preferred
Starbucks over the three 'very good' independents. Evidently, 'very
good' was not good enough for these people, or perhaps it's simply
that your definition of 'very good' doesn't match theirs (sounds
unlikely, but it's possible ;-). And since Starbucks is often
accused of overcharging for their product (read previous posts in
this thread), then they were better enough to have drawn them even
with a higher price - which says even more for their product, IMO.
> ...and have caused 2
> exellent restuarants to be taken over by offering them so much money for
> their buildings that they couldn't pass up the offer.
You'd have to cite some evidence before I'll believe that.
> As far as their
> coffee, it must appeal to the masses but I find it bland and burnt.
Maxwell House, Folgers, et al, have proven that coffee doesn't have
to be of what is generally considered high quality to sell.
> There is another local coffee chain in our area called Peaberry Coffee
> and everything they sell is better than Starbucks.
It would appear that they are selling a product that people like
enough to buy - that's why they're still in business. If the three
locals you mentioned above did the same, then they would still be in
business, too.
> I also don't like
> their strong arm tactics. There is a boat builder in our area that has
> been building jet boats since the 60's. His last name is Starbuck and
> his company was called Starbucks Boats and Starbucks sued him to change
> the name and he had to just do it because he couldn't afford the legal
> fees.
While I have a real problem with such tactics, it's not unique to
Starbucks. Recall the Budweiser thing a couple years ago? There are
countless other examples.
> I think the main thing with Starbucks is since they are the
> McDonalds of coffee, the masses just automatically go there for coffee
> whether they are good or not just like people automatically go to
> McDonalds even though are better places to get a burger.
As long as the other places continue to make a better burger, they'll
survive. That's how it works.
--
-Mike
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 17:42:25
From: Gary D
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
<<<<"There is another local coffee chain in our area called Peaberry
Coffee and everything they sell is better than Starbucks." >>>>
*****"It would appear that they are selling a product that people like
enough to buy - that's why they're still in business. If the three
locals you mentioned above did the same, then they would still be in
business, too."*****
Actually they have sold most of their stores to Starbucks and have only
a few left open in Colorado. They are now selling beans online. I should
have said, "(It is my opinion) that everything they sell is better than
Starbucks!" It's kind of like "Chipoltle" vs "Qdoba". Chipoltle has the
name and does the best business but Qdoba's food is better.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 21:18:00
From: Robert Hormon
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
The correct answer is:
People don't hate Starbucks, they love Starbucks.
Robert "smarter than the rest of you" Hormon
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 16:33:15
From: D D
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
<<<<As was pointed out in another post, it wasn't Starbucks who drove
them out, it was the customers who decided that they preferred Starbucks
over the three 'very good' independents. Evidently, 'very good' was not
good enough for these people, or perhaps it's simply that your
definition of 'very good' doesn't match theirs (sounds unlikely, but
it's possible ;-). And since Starbucks is often accused of overcharging
for their product (read previous posts in this thread), then they were
better enough to have drawn them even with a higher price - which says
even more for their product, IMO. >>>>
The independant coffee shops didn't really lose their regular customers
but they did lose all the extra business from casual non regular
customers who stopped in to get a cup of coffee when they are in area.
Those customers are the ones who will go to a familiar "chain" before
they will go to an unknown independant. I live in an area that has a lot
of tourists who will go to a chain before anywhere else.
<<<<You'd have to cite some evidence before I'll believe that. >>>>
I knew the owner of one of the restuarants and he told me what Starbucks
offered him and how he decided to take it and retire since he may never
get an offer like this again. The other restaurants were closed because
Starbucks offered their lessors much more than the restaurant's were
paying in rent so they lost their lease. They offer so much money, it's
hard to refuse.
<<<<While I have a real problem with such tactics, it's not unique to
Starbucks. Recall the Budweiser thing a couple years ago? There are
countless other examples. >>>>
I know that but SB seems to be one of the most aggressive. The boat
builder didn't have his name registered because in the 60's he didn't
think their would ever be another boat builder named Starbuck (his last
name). Boat building is about as far from coffee as you can get and he
is hardly a big company so it seems just petty.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 19:26:12
From: Mike Hartigan
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
In article <26566-45550C3B-374@storefull-3216.bay.webtv.net >,
davedascenz@webtv.net says...
> <<<<As was pointed out in another post, it wasn't Starbucks who drove
> them out, it was the customers who decided that they preferred Starbucks
> over the three 'very good' independents. Evidently, 'very good' was not
> good enough for these people, or perhaps it's simply that your
> definition of 'very good' doesn't match theirs (sounds unlikely, but
> it's possible ;-). And since Starbucks is often accused of overcharging
> for their product (read previous posts in this thread), then they were
> better enough to have drawn them even with a higher price - which says
> even more for their product, IMO.>>>>
>
> The independant coffee shops didn't really lose their regular customers
> but they did lose all the extra business from casual non regular
> customers who stopped in to get a cup of coffee when they are in area.
> Those customers are the ones who will go to a familiar "chain" before
> they will go to an unknown independant. I live in an area that has a lot
> of tourists who will go to a chain before anywhere else.
That doesn't explain why all three shops closed. Surely, there were
enough regular customers to keep at least two open without the walk-
ins.
> <<<<You'd have to cite some evidence before I'll believe that.>>>>
>
> I knew the owner of one of the restuarants and he told me what Starbucks
> offered him and how he decided to take it and retire since he may never
> get an offer like this again.
Your description suggests that they paid him more than his business
was worth. Sounds like a good new story to me. What's the problem?
> The other restaurants were closed because
> Starbucks offered their lessors much more than the restaurant's were
> paying in rent so they lost their lease. They offer so much money, it's
> hard to refuse.
Evidently, the lessors were undercharging for that space (it's worth
whatever someone is willing to pay for it). So, of the three parties
in that deal, two won, and one lost. Again, what's the problem?
> <<<<While I have a real problem with such tactics, it's not unique to
> Starbucks. Recall the Budweiser thing a couple years ago? There are
> countless other examples.>>>>
>
> I know that but SB seems to be one of the most aggressive. The boat
> builder didn't have his name registered because in the 60's he didn't
> think their would ever be another boat builder named Starbuck (his last
> name). Boat building is about as far from coffee as you can get and he
> is hardly a big company so it seems just petty.
Trademarks are defended vigorously by every big corporation. *$ is
only perceived as "one of the most aggressive" because of what
appears to a a uniquely intense disdain for them among people who
know what good coffee is supposed to taste like.
--
-Mike
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 01:45:26
From: Gary D
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
<<<<That doesn't explain why all three shops closed. Surely, there were
enough regular customers to keep at least two open without the walk-
ins. >>>>
All three counted on casual walk-ins from people who aren't from the
area, just passing thru, to give them a profit. Almost all of the
walk-ins went to the Starbucks along with a few regulars. So even with
keeping most of their regulars, there wasn't enough to survive. The
Starbucks also raised the rents in the area so even though that helps
the building owners it hurts the independents.
<<<<Your description suggests that they paid him more than his business
was worth. Sounds like a good new story to me. What's the problem? >>>>
Oh sure, it's great for the business owner but bad for us residents
because we lose a good restaurant and only gain another Starbucks. I own
a bar and I would love to have Starbucks come and buy me out for more
than my bar is worth so I really don't blame the owners but as resident
of the community I hate the loss independent businesses and the takeover
of chains. So it's great for business bad for the community!
<<<<Evidently, the lessors were undercharging for that space (it's worth
whatever someone is willing to pay for it). So, of the three parties in
that deal, two won, and one lost. Again, what's the problem? >>>>
The problem is it hurts the community. A saturation of Starbucks doesn't
make a community better. We lose the unique flavor that independent
restaurant's give to a community as well as having our choices of places
to eat and "drink" grow smaller. It may be good for the landlord but it
is ultimately bad for the town.
<<<<Trademarks are defended vigorously by every big corporation. *$ is
only perceived as "one of the most aggressive" because of what appears
to a a uniquely intense disdain for them among people who know what good
coffee is supposed to taste like. >>>>
Yes that's true and most of the time it's valid but more and more it's
getting ridicules and Starbucks is leading the way and emboldening other
corporations to get more aggressive toward situations that are of no
threat to them. There are still some big companies that know when
something is a threat and when it isn't. In Denver there is a old lounge
called "Subway". I know the owner and he has never been threatened by
"Subway Corp". There is another old bar in Denver called "The Coors Inn"
after the owner's name who isn't related to the Coors brewery family.
Coors has never bothered him and he doesn't even sell Coors products.
These bars never had their name registered and they have never been
sued. There are other businesses that have also been left alone like a
bar called "Mickey Mouse Manor" and the "Bugs Bunny Motel". Starbucks
should know that some old guy building boats, that has used his own name
before Starbucks Coffee was even dreamed of, is no threat to their
trademark. Actually, legally they don't have a right to make him change
a name he used before they came into existence but just defending that
right would just cost him more money than it's worth. It would probably
bankrupt him so he just had to cave in to them.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 08:01:37
From: Mike Hartigan
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
In article <4934-45558DA6-470@storefull-3215.bay.webtv.net >,
lolajoker@webtv.net says...
> <<<<That doesn't explain why all three shops closed. Surely, there were
> enough regular customers to keep at least two open without the walk-
> ins.>>>>
>
> All three counted on casual walk-ins from people who aren't from the
> area, just passing thru, to give them a profit. Almost all of the
> walk-ins went to the Starbucks along with a few regulars. So even with
> keeping most of their regulars, there wasn't enough to survive.
As I said in a previous post, people buy a product. By 'product', I
mean the whole experience - the drink, the ambience, the sign out
front, the snobbery, etc, etc, etc. Starbucks is selling a coffee
'experience',not simply a cup of coffee. Evidentlty, the transients
prefer the Starbucks experience enough to pay more for the drink that
they think they went in for. That's how Starbucks makes money, and
they're very good at it. That it doesn't suit YOU is irrelevant,
since, if what you say is true, there aren't enough local coffee
drinkers to keep the indies profitable.
> The
> Starbucks also raised the rents in the area so even though that helps
> the building owners it hurts the independents.
Presumably, the building owners are locals, too. It sounds as if you
don't believe that they should benefit from a changing business
climate, rather, the indie coffee shops should. How do you decide
who should get the bigger piece of the changing pie? The bottom line
is if someone sells a product that not enough people want, then they
won't succeed. The same was true when the buggy whip makers lost
their businesses to the car makers a century ago. That's straight
out of the Econ 101 textbook.
> <<<<Your description suggests that they paid him more than his business
> was worth. Sounds like a good new story to me. What's the problem?>>>>
>
> Oh sure, it's great for the business owner but bad for us residents
> because we lose a good restaurant and only gain another Starbucks. I own
> a bar and I would love to have Starbucks come and buy me out for more
> than my bar is worth so I really don't blame the owners but as resident
> of the community I hate the loss independent businesses and the takeover
> of chains.
"Do as I say, not as I do". It's a loss to the community only if it
doesn't benefit YOU? Am I understanding you correctly?
> So it's great for business bad for the community!
I thought the bulk of the business was tourists. Isn't that what you
said, above? If I understood correctly, the community you were
talking about can't support these local businesses - that they rely
on the tourists.
> <<<<Evidently, the lessors were undercharging for that space (it's worth
> whatever someone is willing to pay for it). So, of the three parties in
> that deal, two won, and one lost. Again, what's the problem?>>>>
>
> The problem is it hurts the community. A saturation of Starbucks doesn't
> make a community better. We lose the unique flavor that independent
> restaurant's give to a community as well as having our choices of places
> to eat and "drink" grow smaller. It may be good for the landlord but it
> is ultimately bad for the town.
Are you suggesting that the landlords should forego a fair price for
their 'product' so that the restaurants can stay open? If those
restaurants were so profitable, why shouldn't THEY be the ones to
subsidize the community's well being by paying market rent? That
would be noble on their part, but it's nothing more than charity
either way. Why, in your opinion, should the landlords be the ones
to bear the cost of this charity?
> <<<<Trademarks are defended vigorously by every big corporation. *$ is
> only perceived as "one of the most aggressive" because of what appears
> to a a uniquely intense disdain for them among people who know what good
> coffee is supposed to taste like.>>>>
>
> Yes that's true and most of the time it's valid but more and more it's
> getting ridicules and Starbucks is leading the way and emboldening other
> corporations to get more aggressive toward situations that are of no
> threat to them.
You need to read more - Starbucks didn't blaze any new trails with
this effort. You're giving them far more credit than they deserve.
As for emboldening other corporations, I'm pretty sure that Anheuser-
Busch didn't go after Budvar only after reading of Starbucks success
with the boat guy.
> There are still some big companies that know when
> something is a threat and when it isn't. In Denver there is a old lounge
> called "Subway". I know the owner and he has never been threatened by
> "Subway Corp". There is another old bar in Denver called "The Coors Inn"
> after the owner's name who isn't related to the Coors brewery family.
> Coors has never bothered him and he doesn't even sell Coors products.
> These bars never had their name registered and they have never been
> sued. There are other businesses that have also been left alone like a
> bar called "Mickey Mouse Manor" and the "Bugs Bunny Motel". Starbucks
> should know that some old guy building boats, that has used his own name
> before Starbucks Coffee was even dreamed of, is no threat to their
> trademark. Actually, legally they don't have a right to make him change
> a name he used before they came into existence but just defending that
> right would just cost him more money than it's worth. It would probably
> bankrupt him so he just had to cave in to them.
Typically, businesses negotiate a price to retire a long held name in
cases like this. I'd be surprised if that didn't happen here.
--
-Mike
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 19:14:33
From: Gary D
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
<<<<As I said in a previous post, people buy a product. By 'product', I
mean the whole experience - the drink, the ambience, the sign out front,
the snobbery, etc, etc, etc. Starbucks is selling a coffee
'experience',not simply a cup of coffee. Evidentlty, the transients
prefer the Starbucks experience enough to pay more for the drink that
they think they went in for. That's how Starbucks makes money, and
they're very good at it. That it doesn't suit YOU is irrelevant, since,
if what you say is true, there aren't enough local coffee drinkers to
keep the indies profitable. >>>>
The "experience" is what the indies can't compete against because most
don't have the money to put into the decore and furnishings. The
transients will always prefere the Starbucks experience over the indies
just like they will prefere McDonalds over an indie diner that actually
has good food because they always know what they are getting whether it
is good or bad when it comes to chains.
<<<<Presumably, the building owners are locals, too. >>>>
No they are not, like is so common here in Colorado, most of the land is
owned by outside interests.
<<<< It sounds as if you don't believe that they should benefit from a
changing business climate, rather, the indie coffee shops should. How do
you decide who should get the bigger piece of the changing pie? The
bottom line is if someone sells a product that not enough people want,
then they won't succeed. The same was true when the buggy whip makers
lost their businesses to the car makers a century ago. That's straight
out of the Econ 101 textbook. >>>>
Big money, corporate chains will always be able to out compete the
indies. So I guess we can all look foward to the loss of most of the
independant coffee shops and restaurants. If that's what everybody wants
then I guess they get what they deserve.
<<<<Do as I say, not as I do". It's a loss to the community only if it
doesn't benefit YOU? Am I understanding you correctly? >>>>
First of all, the loss of my little bar would not be a big blow to the
community. Secondly, I'm happy for the business owners that can make
such a deal but that still doesn't make it good for the community. We
lose a unique restaurant that serves food you can't get anywhere else
and gain just another Starbucks that serves the same thing you can get
on any corner around this country. Tell me, how is that a good thing?
<<<<I thought the bulk of the business was tourists. Isn't that what you
said, above? If I understood correctly, the community you were talking
about can't support these local businesses - that they rely on the
tourists. >>>>
The passer's thru put most of the business over the top when it comes to
profits. When they lose them then many just break even or don't make a
good enough profit.
<<<<<Are you suggesting that the landlords should forego a fair price
for their 'product' so that the restaurants can stay open? If those
restaurants were so profitable, why shouldn't THEY be the ones to
subsidize the community's well being by paying market rent? That would
be noble on their part, but it's nothing more than charity either way.
Why, in your opinion, should the landlords be the ones to bear the cost
of this charity? >>>>>
It's beyond a fair price. It's sometimes double or triple what they are
originally asking for rent. When Starbucks wants a location, they will
outbid everybody to get it.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 09:27:05
From: Mike Hartigan
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
In article <27816-45568389-703@storefull-3214.bay.webtv.net >,
lolajoker@webtv.net says...
> <<<<As I said in a previous post, people buy a product. By 'product', I
> mean the whole experience - the drink, the ambience, the sign out front,
> the snobbery, etc, etc, etc. Starbucks is selling a coffee
> 'experience',not simply a cup of coffee. Evidentlty, the transients
> prefer the Starbucks experience enough to pay more for the drink that
> they think they went in for. That's how Starbucks makes money, and
> they're very good at it. That it doesn't suit YOU is irrelevant, since,
> if what you say is true, there aren't enough local coffee drinkers to
> keep the indies profitable.>>>>
>
> The "experience" is what the indies can't compete against because most
> don't have the money to put into the decore and furnishings. The
> transients will always prefere the Starbucks experience over the indies
> just like they will prefere McDonalds over an indie diner that actually
> has good food because they always know what they are getting whether it
> is good or bad when it comes to chains.
But if that's what the core customer base wants, what's the problem?
If there were enough locals willing to support the indies, then the
indies would thrive. There's not, so who really loses besides the
few who apparently feel that someone should subsidize their coffee
preference?
> <<<<Presumably, the building owners are locals, too.>>>>
>
> No they are not, like is so common here in Colorado, most of the land is
> owned by outside interests.
Nevertheless, they invested in the community and are reaping the
rewards of that investment.
> <<<< It sounds as if you don't believe that they should benefit from a
> changing business climate, rather, the indie coffee shops should. How do
> you decide who should get the bigger piece of the changing pie? The
> bottom line is if someone sells a product that not enough people want,
> then they won't succeed. The same was true when the buggy whip makers
> lost their businesses to the car makers a century ago. That's straight
> out of the Econ 101 textbook.>>>>
>
> Big money, corporate chains will always be able to out compete the
> indies. So I guess we can all look foward to the loss of most of the
> independant coffee shops and restaurants. If that's what everybody wants
> then I guess they get what they deserve.
Again, Econ 101. The business that provides "what everybody wants"
is the one that will survive. Surely, this is not a foreign concept
to you.
> <<<<Do as I say, not as I do". It's a loss to the community only if it
> doesn't benefit YOU? Am I understanding you correctly?>>>>
>
> First of all, the loss of my little bar would not be a big blow to the
> community.
What about those who hold beer as dear as you hold coffee? Did you
ask their opinion?
> Secondly, I'm happy for the business owners that can make
> such a deal but that still doesn't make it good for the community. We
> lose a unique restaurant that serves food you can't get anywhere else
> and gain just another Starbucks that serves the same thing you can get
> on any corner around this country. Tell me, how is that a good thing?
Where do the tourists eat? If Starbucks is shutting down the
restaurants, then it would seem that there area is ripe for a new
one. Why doesn't one of the restauranteurs open up a new place with
his new found riches? Or why don't YOU open one up in the mold of
one of the great places you so pine for? If people are willing to
cough up the bucks to keep it profitable, then the restaurant will
thrive. If not, then apparently nobody cares. And if someone
doesn't try, is that Starbucks' fault? One way to have avoided the
situation you described would have been for the restaurant owner to
raise the menu prices to make it worthwhile to keep it open instead
of taking Starbucks' offer. Would the community have supported that
change? If not, then blame them, not $*.
> <<<<I thought the bulk of the business was tourists. Isn't that what you
> said, above? If I understood correctly, the community you were talking
> about can't support these local businesses - that they rely on the
> tourists.>>>>
>
> The passer's thru put most of the business over the top when it comes to
> profits. When they lose them then many just break even or don't make a
> good enough profit.
In other words, the locals don't buy enough coffee to make it
profitable.
> <<<<<Are you suggesting that the landlords should forego a fair price
> for their 'product' so that the restaurants can stay open? If those
> restaurants were so profitable, why shouldn't THEY be the ones to
> subsidize the community's well being by paying market rent? That would
> be noble on their part, but it's nothing more than charity either way.
> Why, in your opinion, should the landlords be the ones to bear the cost
> of this charity?>>>>>
>
> It's beyond a fair price. It's sometimes double or triple what they are
> originally asking for rent. When Starbucks wants a location, they will
> outbid everybody to get it.
The market price is whatever someone is willing to pay for it.
--
-Mike
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 08:22:31
From: cpl593h
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
If you convince people that it is your (inferior) product that they
want, via creative marketing strategy a la Starbucks, then you really
don't have to cater to anyone but your stockholders.
>
> Again, Econ 101. The business that provides "what everybody wants"
> is the one that will survive. Surely, this is not a foreign concept
> to you.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 12:18:27
From: Mike Hartigan
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
Show me a business whose primary purpose is not to make money and
I'll show you a failed business. Unless the proprietor (typically,
the sole stockholder in an independent shop) has another source of
income to support himself and his family, money has to be the
objective. Indeed, if a business consistently fails to make money,
the IRS calls it a 'hobby' and disqualifies most business deductions.
Marketing is a tool used by businesses to attract new customers. If
their marketing effort results in more people trying their coffee,
then that marketing effort was a success. Once in the store, if
enough of those people like the product enough to return and buy
more, then both Starbucks and those customers win. As for the
product being inferior, that's a matter of taste. Many people like
it regardless of your opinion. And sorry -- you don't get to decide
for them.
In article <1163348551.169807.214280@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
CPL593H@gmail.com says...
> If you convince people that it is your (inferior) product that they
> want, via creative marketing strategy a la Starbucks, then you really
> don't have to cater to anyone but your stockholders.
>
> >
> > Again, Econ 101. The business that provides "what everybody wants"
> > is the one that will survive. Surely, this is not a foreign concept
> > to you.
>
>
--
-Mike
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 16:10:45
From: Harry Moos
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
In our former business [we are retired], it was that "return" customer we
counted on to make a profit. An attractively marketed product may gain a
first sale, but a shoddy product does not attract a return. Nearly 75% of
our sales [at time of our retirement] were repeat customers. While I don't
care for the taste of Starbucks products, I will admit that they have many
regular customers who guarantee that "return" customer base.
"Mike Hartigan" <mike@hartigan.dot.com > wrote in message
news:MPG.1fc1216b8214492c98988b@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> Once in the store, if enough of those people like the product enough to
> return and buy
> more, then both Starbucks and those customers win.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 06:15:25
From: Paul Vojta
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
In article <MPG.1fbee2aa7a4890b5989881@newsgroups.comcast.net >,
Mike Hartigan <mike@hartigan.dot.com > wrote:
>Trademarks are defended vigorously by every big corporation. *$ is
>only perceived as "one of the most aggressive" because of what
>appears to a a uniquely intense disdain for them among people who
>know what good coffee is supposed to taste like.
Except in this case I don't see why the word "defend" would apply,
since Starbuck's Boats was "there" first.
--Paul Vojta, vojta@math.berkeley.edu
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 09:29:05
From: Mike Hartigan
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
In article <ej6e5t$188k$1@agate.berkeley.edu >,
vojta@math.berkeley.edu says...
> In article <MPG.1fbee2aa7a4890b5989881@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> Mike Hartigan <mike@hartigan.dot.com> wrote:
> >Trademarks are defended vigorously by every big corporation. *$ is
> >only perceived as "one of the most aggressive" because of what
> >appears to a a uniquely intense disdain for them among people who
> >know what good coffee is supposed to taste like.
>
> Except in this case I don't see why the word "defend" would apply,
> since Starbuck's Boats was "there" first.
But Starbucks (coffee) had the foresight to register the name.
That's what they're defending.
--
-Mike
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 13:33:32
From: Bill Patterson
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
Gary D
It's constantly amazing to me how supposed free market people go out of
their way to defend coercive monopolies -- which is the business
tactics you are describing for the Starbucks in your area.
What we are seeing in operation is a mixed economy that is jiggered to
encourage concentration by a variation on "enclosure of the commons"
and to discourage the various mechanisms that operate in an open market
as negative feedback to consolidation and conglomeratization. This is
not a market mechanism.
Eliminating diversity is not in the best interest of the community, and
the elimination of diversity is a sure sign (generally; there are some
exceptions) of a rigged market. Free markets encourage diversity.
The very last thing libertarians need is unfortunately what they have
too much of -- apologists for mixed economy market economics.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 08:26:04
From: cpl593h
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
So the law is the only thing that determines what is ethical? In a body
of law that favors large corporate bodies, it's might makes right,
isn't it?
> When laws are broken, the situation changes dramatically. There's
> nothing to defend, in that case. I didn't get the sense that that's
> what we were discussing, here.
>
> --
> -Mike
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 12:27:07
From: Mike Hartigan
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
I'm not talking ethics, I'm talking business. Laws relating to
business are largely borne of ethics. The law (codified consensus)
determines when the line has been crossed. But that's a whole
'nuther thread.
The concepts and tactics being discussed here are not unique to
Starbucks. Indeed, they're not unique to large corporations. When a
small, independent business owner accepts three times what his
business is worth to close up shop and make room for a competitor, is
he acting any less ethically than the competitor who makes the offer?
Judging from the comments offered in this thread, both of them are
saying 'to hell with the community'. Yet it's the big corporation
that is the target of criticism.
In article <1163348764.918424.47180@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
CPL593H@gmail.com says...
> So the law is the only thing that determines what is ethical? In a body
> of law that favors large corporate bodies, it's might makes right,
> isn't it?
>
>
> > When laws are broken, the situation changes dramatically. There's
> > nothing to defend, in that case. I didn't get the sense that that's
> > what we were discussing, here.
> >
> > --
> > -Mike
>
>
--
-Mike
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 23:16:53
From: rasqual
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
On Nov 11, 8:01 am, Mike Hartigan <m...@hartigan.dot.com > wrote:
> Presumably, the building owners are locals, too.
The precise contrary should be the most instinctive presumption.
A current lawsuit against *$ is claiming that one property owner in
particular has exclusive leases with Starbucks in all its buildings,
which amounts to "35 percent of the country's high-rises." That's one
company with a nationwide footprint.
> > The problem is it hurts the community. A saturation of Starbucks doesn't
> > make a community better. We lose the unique flavor that independent
> > restaurant's give to a community as well as having our choices of places
> > to eat and "drink" grow smaller. It may be good for the landlord but it
> > is ultimately bad for the town.
> Are you suggesting that the landlords should forego a fair price for
> their 'product' so that the restaurants can stay open?
The same lawsuit is claiming that Starbucks offers landlords higher
prices than they're asking, to guarantee an exclusive lease. This is
the power of economic clout, not superior product. They have a lock on
a market before anyone even tastes their coffee.
FWIW
- S
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 09:31:45
From: Mike Hartigan
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
In article <1163315813.888867.176390@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
scott.marquardt@gmail.com says...
> On Nov 11, 8:01 am, Mike Hartigan <m...@hartigan.dot.com> wrote:
>
> > Presumably, the building owners are locals, too.
>
> The precise contrary should be the most instinctive presumption.
>
> A current lawsuit against *$ is claiming that one property owner in
> particular has exclusive leases with Starbucks in all its buildings,
> which amounts to "35 percent of the country's high-rises." That's one
> company with a nationwide footprint.
>
> > > The problem is it hurts the community. A saturation of Starbucks doesn't
> > > make a community better. We lose the unique flavor that independent
> > > restaurant's give to a community as well as having our choices of places
> > > to eat and "drink" grow smaller. It may be good for the landlord but it
> > > is ultimately bad for the town.
>
> > Are you suggesting that the landlords should forego a fair price for
> > their 'product' so that the restaurants can stay open?
>
> The same lawsuit is claiming that Starbucks offers landlords higher
> prices than they're asking, to guarantee an exclusive lease. This is
> the power of economic clout, not superior product. They have a lock on
> a market before anyone even tastes their coffee.
When laws are broken, the situation changes dramatically. There's
nothing to defend, in that case. I didn't get the sense that that's
what we were discussing, here.
--
-Mike
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 13:50:04
From: rasqual
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
On Nov 12, 12:27 pm, Mike Hartigan <m...@hartigan.dot.com > wrote:
> The concepts and tactics being discussed here are not unique to
> Starbucks. Indeed, they're not unique to large corporations. When a
> small, independent business owner accepts three times what his
> business is worth to close up shop and make room for a competitor, is
> he acting any less ethically than the competitor who makes the offer?
> Judging from the comments offered in this thread, both of them are
> saying 'to hell with the community'. Yet it's the big corporation
> that is the target of criticism.
Well, yeah. Your use of the word "accepts" implies a prior offer from
the large business.
It's one thing to capitulate to a new reality (post-offer). It's
another thing to bring such an offer into a community in the first
place. And it's something to put a small business in such a tough spot.
There's something slightly cruel about it, though it could be said that
it proves that "every man has his price," though another construal
could be "some principles are negotiable" -- true, but sad. Even
negotiable principles can be good ones which one would like to see hewn
to.
- S
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 13:45:14
From: rasqual
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
On Nov 12, 9:31 am, Mike Hartigan <m...@hartigan.dot.com > wrote:
> When laws are broken, the situation changes dramatically. There's
> nothing to defend, in that case. I didn't get the sense that that's
> what we were discussing, here.
Perhaps not -- but remember that one of the reasons laws are MADE is
because certain human actions -- such as business practices against
which no existing statute might compell restraint -- are deemed
intolerable by a sufficient number of lawmakers lobbied by special
interests to, er, legislate.
I don't think that anyone should feel compelled to limit their own
offense at a business's practices to the scope of what's illegal. It's
a free country, but it would be wrong to assume that consumers or small
business owners ought to don colorful leotards and gaily leap about
sunny meadows, strewing daisies, on account of just whatever any
particular large business legally did. We can't legislate against all
actions people justly don't like, which means that a lot of legal
activity warrants complaint.
It could even be considered that a litigous society is a society under
enough control to not criminalize just everything that generates
offense. That would be a reluctant concession were the notion to be
wrung out of me, though. ;-)
- S
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 17:48:03
From: Gary D
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
The other thing that is a little maddening, is their saturation. In
shopping center in my area there are 2 free standing SD, one in a
supermarket and one in a Barnes and Noble. All in a one block area.
There is only one McDonalds for a five mile radius in the same area!
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 11:17:25
From:
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
Puester wrote:
> no_awkward_feelings_in_my_back@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I don't get it.
> >
>
>
> IMO:
>
> They have brainwashed an entire generation
> Their coffee is awful
Taste is a subjective thing. Your 'awful' may well be someone else's
'superb'.
> Their coffee is too expensive
Evidently not, or they wouldn't sell so much of it.
> They have put too many local shops out of business
The customers who chose *$ over the local shops are the ones who put
the local shops out of business. *$ couldn't force them to buy their
coffee. They simply gave them what was perceived to be a better
product - a better value for their dollar. Again, it's a subjective
thing. If the local shops were better at it and had put *$ out of
business, would you be as critical of the locals?
> Like Chicken Man, "they're everywhere, they're everywhere"
Indeed!
> gloria p
> who has had exactly 3 cups of Starbucks coffee
> which was 2 too many
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 19:15:41
From: AZ Nomad
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
On 9 Nov 2006 01:13:25 -0800, no_awkward_feelings_in_my_back@yahoo.com <no_awkward_feelings_in_my_back@yahoo.com > wrote:
>I don't get it.
troll
|
| |
Date: 09 Nov 2006 11:09:19
From:
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
Bill Patterson wrote:
> no_awkward_feelings_in_my_back@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I don't get it.
>
> Very simple: it's Gresham's law applied to coffee: bad coffee drives
> out good. For every Starbucks there could be a place making and
> serving *good* coffee instead.
There are likely many *$ customers who would say that *$ drove out the
places serving bad coffee and are serving good coffee instead. It's
all a matter of taste. As I said, I don't like *$ coffee. But I
accept the reality that lots and lots of people do. Since *$ doesn't
deny me what I like, why should I waste my energy trashing them?
> In my experience Starbucks is liked by people who don't really like
> coffee, but like the fringe effects -- the foam and the steam and the
> ritual of coffee, and the social atmosphere of the place. If it's
> "just the coffee, ma'am," Starbucks probably don't do it for you --
> particularly after your palate becomes more experienced.
You may be right. *$ sells an experience - the ambiance, the
pseudo-intellectual banter, the image, etc. People are willing to pay
for that. The coffee may, indeed, be secondary. As long as that
continues to bring in tons and tons of money, that's what they're going
to sell.
|
| |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 08:22:18
From: daveb
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
snobbery.
no_awkward_feelings_in_my_back@yahoo.com wrote:
> I don't get it.
|
| |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 21:13:15
From: rasqual
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
On Nov 9, 3:13 am, no_awkward_feelings_in_my_b...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I don't get it.
Predatory suppression of competing indie coffee shops, pretentious
argot, and a history of having brainwashed two generations into
thinking that charcoal and coffee share more in common than they really
do.
Notice I didn't say "IMO"
;-)
|
| | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 07:12:16
From: Mike Hartigan
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
In article <1163221995.448713.119890@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >,
scott.marquardt@gmail.com says...
>
> On Nov 9, 3:13 am, no_awkward_feelings_in_my_b...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I don't get it.
>
> Predatory suppression of competing indie coffee shops, pretentious
> argot, and a history of having brainwashed two generations into
> thinking that charcoal and coffee share more in common than they really
> do.
>
> Notice I didn't say "IMO"
So *YOU* are the one who gets to decide what everybody else likes?
I'm, indeed, humbled to be typing in the same newsgroup as you!
--
-Mike
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 17:27:42
From: Donn Cave
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
Quoth Mike Hartigan <mike@hartigan.dot.com >:
|
| | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 02:22:11
From: Mike Wolf
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
I've been a big consumer of "good" coffee most of my life and have been
going to coffee houses since the 60's. I have been thrilled with the
quality coffee explosion that has occured throughout this country of
which Starbucks has been greatly responsible for. As Starbucks gained
popularity I didn't have a chance to try them because there were none in
my area. When one finally opened, I anxiously tried them and boy was I
disapointed. Compared to the coffee I had been drinking at home and at
various coffee houses Starbucks was awful! I think Dunkin Donuts has
better coffee! I think the reason for their popularity that most people
were drinking Folgers etc. and when they tried Starbucks it was so much
better they stayed with them. The trouble is they didn't keep going,
keep exploring, and finding out that there is even better coffee out
there. I think what also makes them so popular is their fu fu drinks.
That's what I see most people carrying out of them. Also the fact they
are so ubiquitous. You can't turn around without stumbling upon one. I
also think the atomphere of the shops and the smell is a big draw.
|
| |
Date: 10 Nov 2006 18:08:36
From: tjnamtiw
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
Has anyone noticed that the original poster has never posted a response.
You have all been baited into agrueing AGAIN about *$. There is no right
answer, people!!!! Some like it. Some don't. Some have taste and some
don't. Guess which ones don't/////
<no_awkward_feelings_in_my_back@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1163063605.929148.46470@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I don't get it.
>
|
| | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 03:31:21
From: VicTek
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
"tjnamtiw" <tjwitman@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:ZD75h.13772$GU5.10458@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> Has anyone noticed that the original poster has never posted a response.
> You have all been baited into agrueing AGAIN about *$. There is no right
> answer, people!!!! Some like it. Some don't. Some have taste and some
> don't. Guess which ones don't/////
FWIW, I've appreciated many of the posts in this thread. Even if the OP was
just trolling I don't think the conversation has been without merit. And
while I'm here I'll respond to the objection that a number of posters stated
to the concentration of Starbucks stores. It must be that there's enough
business to support multiple stores in close proximity. How else could they
keep them open?
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 17:15:48
From: Tom
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
Well, VicTek, if you've enjoyed the posts on this subject, then you should
go back and read the hundreds of other posts from the same group of people
arguing about the same thing, which, of course, can't be settled. Surely,
there is something else worth debating...........................
Anything!!!!!!!!!!!
"VicTek" <abc@xyz.com > wrote in message
news:dub5h.24460$TV3.8710@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "tjnamtiw" <tjwitman@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:ZD75h.13772$GU5.10458@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>> Has anyone noticed that the original poster has never posted a response.
>> You have all been baited into agrueing AGAIN about *$. There is no right
>> answer, people!!!! Some like it. Some don't. Some have taste and some
>> don't. Guess which ones don't/////
>
> FWIW, I've appreciated many of the posts in this thread. Even if the OP
> was just trolling I don't think the conversation has been without merit.
> And while I'm here I'll respond to the objection that a number of posters
> stated to the concentration of Starbucks stores. It must be that there's
> enough business to support multiple stores in close proximity. How else
> could they keep them open?
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 01:09:45
From: VicTek
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
If I had read "the hundreds of other posts from the same group of people
arguing about the same thing" you're probably right that I wouldn't need
more, but this is the first time for me. If by settling the issues you mean
everyone coming to a consensus I agree it ain't going to happen, but I don't
think that makes the debate useless.
"Tom" <tjwitman@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:mYr5h.18359$GE1.10453@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> Well, VicTek, if you've enjoyed the posts on this subject, then you should
> go back and read the hundreds of other posts from the same group of people
> arguing about the same thing, which, of course, can't be settled. Surely,
> there is something else worth debating...........................
> Anything!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> "VicTek" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message
> news:dub5h.24460$TV3.8710@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "tjnamtiw" <tjwitman@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:ZD75h.13772$GU5.10458@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>> Has anyone noticed that the original poster has never posted a response.
>>> You have all been baited into agrueing AGAIN about *$. There is no
>>> right answer, people!!!! Some like it. Some don't. Some have taste
>>> and some don't. Guess which ones don't/////
>>
>> FWIW, I've appreciated many of the posts in this thread. Even if the OP
>> was just trolling I don't think the conversation has been without merit.
>> And while I'm here I'll respond to the objection that a number of posters
>> stated to the concentration of Starbucks stores. It must be that there's
>> enough business to support multiple stores in close proximity. How else
>> could they keep them open?
>>
>
>
>
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 21:44:26
From: Tom
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
Ok, VicTek. :o) Stick around for a while and you'll see this come up again
and again.
"VicTek" <abc@xyz.com > wrote in message
news:tvu5h.2386$Sw1.591@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> If I had read "the hundreds of other posts from the same group of people
> arguing about the same thing" you're probably right that I wouldn't need
> more, but this is the first time for me. If by settling the issues you
> mean everyone coming to a consensus I agree it ain't going to happen, but
> I don't think that makes the debate useless.
>
> "Tom" <tjwitman@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:mYr5h.18359$GE1.10453@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>> Well, VicTek, if you've enjoyed the posts on this subject, then you
>> should go back and read the hundreds of other posts from the same group
>> of people arguing about the same thing, which, of course, can't be
>> settled. Surely, there is something else worth
>> debating........................... Anything!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>
>> "VicTek" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message
>> news:dub5h.24460$TV3.8710@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>> "tjnamtiw" <tjwitman@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ZD75h.13772$GU5.10458@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>>> Has anyone noticed that the original poster has never posted a
>>>> response. You have all been baited into agrueing AGAIN about *$. There
>>>> is no right answer, people!!!! Some like it. Some don't. Some have
>>>> taste and some don't. Guess which ones don't/////
>>>
>>> FWIW, I've appreciated many of the posts in this thread. Even if the OP
>>> was just trolling I don't think the conversation has been without merit.
>>> And while I'm here I'll respond to the objection that a number of
>>> posters stated to the concentration of Starbucks stores. It must be
>>> that there's enough business to support multiple stores in close
>>> proximity. How else could they keep them open?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 11 Nov 2006 14:53:58
From: rasqual
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
On Nov 11, 7:12 am, Mike Hartigan <m...@hartigan.dot.com > wrote:
> > So *YOU* are the one who gets to decide what everybody else likes?
> > I'm, indeed, humbled to be typing in the same newsgroup as you!
You neglected that I did not say "Simon says type."
;-)
You phrased that with the force of a conclusion; please trace your
inference.
- S
|
| | |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 09:05:34
From: Mike Hartigan
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
In article <1163285638.412552.146050@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >,
scott.marquardt@gmail.com says...
> On Nov 11, 7:12 am, Mike Hartigan <m...@hartigan.dot.com> wrote:
>
> > > So *YOU* are the one who gets to decide what everybody else likes?
> > > I'm, indeed, humbled to be typing in the same newsgroup as you!
>
> You neglected that I did not say "Simon says type."
>
> ;-)
>
> You phrased that with the force of a conclusion; please trace your
> inference.
"and a history of having brainwashed two generations into
thinking that charcoal and coffee share more in common than they
really do."
That suggests, to me, an effort by Starbucks to convince people that
very dark roasted coffee is good when it is not (the word
'brainwash' is what gave it away). The implied assertion that it is
not is what I was referring to. Perhaps you can provide a plausible
alternate interpretation of this comment?
--
-Mike
|
| |
Date: 12 Nov 2006 14:05:37
From: rasqual
Subject: Re: Why do people hate Starbucks?
|
On Nov 12, 9:05 am, Mike Hartigan <m...@hartigan.dot.com > wrote:
> scott.marqua...@gmail.com says...
> > On Nov 11, 7:12 am, Mike Hartigan <m...@hartigan.dot.com> wrote:
> > > > So *YOU* are the one who gets to decide what everybody else likes?
> > > > I'm, indeed, humbled to be typing in the same newsgroup as you!
> > You phrased that with the force of a conclusion; please trace your
> > inference."
> "and a history of having brainwashed two generations into
> thinking that charcoal and coffee share more in common than they
> really do."
> That suggests, to me, an effort by Starbucks to convince people that
> very dark roasted coffee is good when it is not (the word
> 'brainwash' is what gave it away). The implied assertion that it is
> not is what I was referring to. Perhaps you can provide a plausible
> alternate interpretation of this comment?
Whether it was a conscious effort on Starbucks' part or not, I'd say
it's the effect, yes.
Many people credit Starbucks with having introduced traditional,
quality coffee (in the Italian style) to America, but the case could as
well be made that inadequately familiarizing consumers with other
basics about coffee is not as much to the company's credit -- such as
leaving them to equate "strength" of coffee with "darkness of roast."
Obviously if a company isn't going to admit that it roasts its coffee
too dark, the distinction between what people actually experience in
the cup and that depth of roast will not be explicated sufficiently to
prevent the consumer from simply calling it "strong" -- leaving people
like me to patiently perform therapy on dozens of coffee drinkers we
know.
But I digress.
My observation has been a constant stream of refugees from Starbucks,
most of whom tell me they don't like "strong" coffee. When I've put
that concern into play brewing for such people, it turns out that of
course they mean they don't like a dark roast. The idiocy of the world
to which Starbucks has acclimated them is that they have no other word
for this but "strong," so they still buy burned coffee beans but dilute
it so that it's not "strong" -- as if less of a bad thing were a good
substitute for more of a good thing.
It's not my own taste in coffee my sweeping remarks derive from. It's
what I observe among others.
- Scott
|
|
