June 04, 2003
Tales of an Evil Empire
Recently at lunch I overheard a Starbuck's manager training a couple new employees for the new store they are opening in Kittery. I was amazed at the snippet I heard (and not just because of the "all the the drinks you can drink while working" perk). Warning, rant ahead. Click below to read more...
The manager went on at length about social responsibility aspects of the company. He encouraged each employee to get involved in a local charity, and said Starbuck's will help support their employees' causes with product donations, matching time, even grants, as long as the employee is also heavily involved. Personally, he read for the blind every week. He also went into detail about some extra steps they will be going through to fully recycle their waste, since the city does not offer it (or something like that), and about how they will be saving coffee grinds to donate to someone for something (what are coffee grinds good for? composting?). That struck me as very smart: Not only does the company give to charities, but they incentivize their employees to get involved with charities as well, which is probably much more valuable than a couple million here and there.
All this renewed my amazed befuddlement at people's virulent animosity for Starbucks. It is often ranked somewhere between McDonald's and Osama/Saddam/Chirac/Bush (pick your political pariah) in the list of evils of this world. Their sins seem to be: (1) not local; (2) many locations; (3) making a profit. I just don't get it. They offer a superior product, treat employees well (named one of Fortune's best places to work), and try to be socially responsible (support local and national charities, community involvement, environmentally conscious, promote economic fair-trade down the supplier chain). I mean really, go look at their social responsibility page and think about what your employer is doing. What's so bad here? Isn't Starbuck's an example of a public corporation trying to do the right thing -- even in the face of "maximizing shareholder value"? Shouldn't they be lauded and held up as an example rather than vilified as an evil coffee hegemony?
The number one complaint I hear is that Starbuck's puts the local shops out of business. First, even if it's true, I don't believe it is a valid reason: Sorry, but I am a free market purist on this; I don't believe in protecting the local shop because it's local. They should compete. Second, even if it's true, we're not talking Wal-Mart here: Starbuck's is not coming in and undercutting the locals with impossibly low prices. They charge a healthy premium price. Third, I'm not sure it's true that Starbuck's puts the local shops out of business. This Wall Street Journal article [Despite Starbucks Jitters, Most Coffeehouses Thrive] asserts that Starbuck's actually helps the locals: In fact, sales at the 10-year-old [local] coffeehouse have grown stronger since Starbucks arrived. With reluctance, [the owner], concedes that that might not be a coincidence. "Starbucks helped our business, but I don't want to give them any credit for it," he says. Empirical evidence in the Portsmouth market would seem to support this. All this adds up to a simple fact: If you go out of business in the face of Starbucks, you probably had bad coffee and/or service.
Lastly, there is the hypocrisy of which many are guilty. Detractors of Starbuck's and other national chains bemoan the "homogenization of America", but when you are out of town, visiting someplace you don't know, just making a quick stop off the highway, do you head for Joe's Local Diner or McDonalds? McDonalds. (Or, actually, Wendy's if it's available.) The food may not be the best, but at least you know what you're going to get. How about coffee? You may check out the small local shop if you have some spare time and it looks charming, but if you just need a quick cup in a hurry: Starbucks. The truth is, we love the homogenization of America, just not in our own hometown.
Posted by David at June 4, 2003 09:43 AM | EditExcellent post, Dave. Indeed all the coffee shops down in Portsmouth seem to be doing just fine with Starbucks around. Also, I never could understand the venom from the typical anti-Globo against Starbucks. This is a company they should be praising. It really goes to show that a number of Lefties have made the decision to hate capitalism in all its forms and flavors.
I agree with you too. My main beef is that I think BNG tastes better. The morning crew in Durham has really been looking up this week. Portsmouth's downside is that I don't think they are as friendly.
Excellent graphic as well ;-)
I also get a lot of grief for my love of Starbucks. But from someone who travels a lot, I can say that the consistency of the coffee and of the locations is very comforting.
If I am in downtown Atlanta, and I get in a cab and say "take my to the nearest coffee place" I could end up in a bad part of town (or worse, with a bad cup of coffee!). If I say "take me to a Starbucks, I will most likely end up in a nice part of the city and get a nice cup of coffee. And I don't have to carry cash, thanks to my Starbucks card. And I can usually get my email via the Starbucks/T-Mobile thing.
BNG is excellent: I used to make a habit of sitting in the Portsmouth BNG and writing... sadly I'm not in downtown Portsmouth enough to really do that anymore.
Don't get me wrong, I like the coffee at Breaking New Grounds (Portsmouth & Durham) and Cafe on the Corner (Dover) also. I hear Cafe Kilim (Portsmouth) is good although I have only been there once. Starbucks is good for strong, dark, rich, unflavored coffee. The others do good flavored coffees. I like both. However, for lunch most days I go to Starbuck's because they have what I find to be a more inviting atmosphere (read: soft cushy chairs) and I find the staff more friendly than BNG in Portsmouth. BNG Durham is great -- nice atmosphere, comfortable seating, friendly staff -- but alas not convenient during lunch.
This just happened to me again: there was a very typical "don't buy from Walmart, buy from a local store" tirade going on... and of course I chime in with a spiel about free enterprise and how local shops could actually compete, etc. Starbucks came up as the final evidence against chains; "The Starbucks in downtown has practically put Cafe Brioche and BNG our of business!" they exclaim, aghast at how evil and insidious I am.
I used this post in my defense, pointing out how many local cafes actually benefit from Starbucks, and how local convenience stores and department stores could study this and learn to compete with large department-store chains in a similar fashion.
I also pointed out that Brocks Lumber in Rochester is doing better than ever despite having the Home Depot move in literally right next door (at least according to the clerk I spoke to the last time I was in there). Heck, I was in the HD once, and they referred me to Brocks!
I pointed them to your blog, but I doubt they'll bother to read it...
It was a bit of a surprise to find the Starbucks London serving quite the watered down version of SB's 40W coffee, but was welcome relief from the other coffee in a tea man's land.
Breaking New Grounds offers the flavor element,
and is my preference. I agree they're not as friendly, the beehive atmosphere makes up for that is entertainment value.
I did meet my wonderful girfriend in a Starbucks tho'.
RE: Undying love of the corporate coffeclatch...Starbucks
Does your kind and benevolent Starbucks practice fair trade? Buying from coffee farmers at a fair price? Or like many of the corporate perveyors of the lovingly familiar, use thier enormous buying power to muscle the lowest price possible? Buy coffee cheaply, sell it at premium prices for that oh so fat bottom line and let Juan the coffee farmer be damed.
Starbucks sloughs off the guilt by following Ronald into the benevolent entity. Donate some funds, pour some freebees...
The fact of the matter is, Starbucks is preying on your fear. Fear of the unknown...fear of actually going into an unfamiliar shop for a coffee? Starbucks is helping destroy our culture.
And those who support this destruction deserve to hide out at their safe, homogonized, little corner of the universe which is Starbucks.
Whatta bunch of sheep.
LoanSlone: I see you were Googling "evil walmart hegemony" but I guess you didn't find what you were looking for so decided to Starbucks-bash instead. I believe you miss the main point: How about we give Starbucks credit for doing *something* (and a lot of something at that) while so many other large corps do *nothing* or worse?
Starbucks and its "enormous buying power" is going to do more for Fair Trade than a bunch of little coffee shops who have to buy from faceless wholesalers. Do your research: "Starbucks is one of North America’s largest roasters and retailers of Fair Trade Certified coffee." [ http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/progress_report.asp ] It's going to take someone with Starbucks clout to help Juan. And what's wrong with maximizing the bottom line? I'd have a hard time believing you don't maximize the bottom line in your personal life.
If you want a static culture, move to France. Homogenization *is* part of our culture. Our culture chooses its own way, corporations do not force it. These places succeed because people like them. Our culture likes them. Your confused; you can not reconcile the fact that our culture does not share your personal views. You believe everyone is a "sheep" because they don't agree with you and your minority opinion, and you even sentence us to what we "deserve" for thinking differently than you. Your part of a minority that thinks it knows best. That's elitism at best, fascism at worst.
You all don't get it. You can't see what the problem is with Starbuck's. I worked there for a while— for two weeks, which was as long as I could take it before I lost my mind. I worked there because they confused me for a young hippy-ish person; I was just looking to pay some bills, and I had to sacrifice my dignity and self respect a bit to do it... Sometimes that's the way it goes, but I just couldn't stay at that place.
The reason people hate it is because it triggers something negative in their mind. The company is like a bad guy in disguise, and I think a lot of people recognize that. Somewhere beyond that suspiciously friendly and marketable face, there lies a monster. There operation possesses a real disingenuousness that many people can detect, but do not know why. It is similar to recognizing such things about a person— some people can pick up when they are dealing with a shady character, other people just miss this about who they are dealing with, allow themselves to be suckered, and then act surprised later when they find out that the guy they let take their kids to Disneyland was actually making them shave potatoes in their kitchen.
You people don't see what the big deal is. I can't see why you can't see it. I guess you will have to wait it out. Maybe the truth with be known to you all in the end. Yes, I am a die hard critic of corporations and their often lowly business tactics. I detest the way marketing works in our country (I am not opposed to all marketing, just the way it seems to be done here), and I ridicule most corporate structures. I have good reasons for this, but who cares what I think? I am not going to argue about Starbuck's, just point out that I think you all have let their big trail of PR marketing win you over. There ain't no prize there. Some companies use "working for the community" purely to their advantage. Some people will recognize that, others will not.
Who cares?
This is all well and good, but what IS it that you are talking about? You still don't explain what is wrong with Starbucks. What is it that "us people" are missing?
you guys all make valid points...starbucks coffee is pretty good...and they don't treat their employees terribly...and no, there's nothing immoral about large corporations entering local markets on a massive scale...i think the main reason people detest corporations like starbucks is that it destroys the landscape of local communities...some people refer to it as the "homogenization of america"...as an example, yesterday i returned home to texas for the first time in seven years to find that the local restaurants on our strip have been replaced by red lobster, chili's, and some other place...that may sound like a marvel of economics to someone who hasn't witnessed it first hand, but i must say it was a pretty sad sight, in my opinion...call me a lefty, or whatever you'd like, but i would much rather live in a town with some local character...and yes, i would pay a premium or vote for that
Ah yes Matt, the homogenization of America... but let me ask you this... when you are driving across the country and pull into some little town for a quick dinner, do you eat at the shady little local joint or head for the Olive Garden?
There is nothing wrong with making a buck and it is commendable if a business is even socially responsible, like Starbucks tries to be. The problem with Starbuck is its product--it serves espresso-flavored milk. In its goal to bring the Italian espresso bar to America, Starbucks has managed to Americanize and mass produce espresso coffee--and that is ok. But what is unforgivable is that Starbucks has managed to corrupt the coffee and drown out that espresso bite; so much, that it is hard to tell the difference between a cappuccino, latte and a glass of warm milk. And I am not talking about a particular store. No matter where I travel, Starbucks coffees are the same.
I AM one who seeks out local coffeehouses where ever I go and, I must say, most local coffeehouses produce much better espresso drinks than Starbucks. But, yes, I must confess, when I am in a rush and need a cappuccino, I stop in to a Starbucks; only to throw the drink out after a couple of sips.
A comment on the American drinker: Though we Americans have been drinking coffee for over 200 years, espresso is relatively new to our culture. Very few of us have tasted a real cappuccino, or an espresso, or a latte. We are in love with, in my opinion, not the drink, but of the romance of the drink. Every visit to a coffeehouse takes us to Florence, Berkeley (circa 1968), 1920's Paris, or wherever we wish to be transported. It is relaxing to grab a cup of coffee, sit at your own table and contemplate the meaning of your own existence. That is why Starbucks is tolerated. That is why the people continue to return (AND because each store is very conveniently located).
But tolerating poor espresso is not our fault. Many of us are not educated in espressos, just as many are not educated in fine wines. As coffee drinkers, we owe it to ourselves to educate ourselves. Only in this way will we be able to demand a better product. So, to get started, if you want a good cappuccino, or latte, or whatever you desire, try your local hole-in-the-wall coffeehouse. You won't regret it.
I just saw a starbucks segment on 60 minutes. This company is not that bad. They said they provide health insurance for all workers that do at least 20 hours a week AND they spend more on health insurance than they do on coffee. Why the hell won't Walmart do that, they are the real EVIL EMPIRE because they teach their employees how to use government assistance in place of buying health insurance. In other words, Walmart offers lower prices to offset higher taxes. At least Starbucks doesn't do that. I HATE WALMART!!!!