“When is a Starbucks not a Starbucks? When it’s a 15th Avenue Coffee and Tea.”
That’s right, the same company that made its name offering cookie-cutter storefronts all over the world has decided to rethink its strategy and rip-off the unique, local shops its been putting out of business for years.
The test store “will open next week, the first of at least three remodeled Seattle-area stores that will bear the names of their neighborhoods rather than the 16,000-store chain to which they belong.”
It will also sell beer and wine, “in the spirit of a traditional coffeehouse,” have live music, and “sell espresso from a manual machine rather than the automated type found in most Starbucks stores.” What will the store not have (aside from a soul)? The Starbucks logo.
Local coffee-shop owners are naturally asking, WTF?
13 responses
Hmmm, yeah, well…. I support a lot of independently-owned businesses. However I’ve been patronizing a Starbucks in the Richmond District for years now because they have reliably strong and drinkable (unbitter, unwatery) coffee. Were there a neighborhood cafe–and please, enlighten me, Richmond-Districtians–that offered reliably good coffee I’d go there. I’ve tried quite a few cafes in my neighborhood and precious few serve consistently drinkable coffee. (Again, suggestions welcome!) The coffee we drink at home is Blue Bottle, which my husband and I love, and which is independently owned. We go through 10 bags of beans every month, so we’re supporting them too. For an occasional mocha, Peets is good (their straight-up coffee is too bitter for me) and I visit other nabe cafes and order tea and/or food. Many have lovely and/or interesting atmospheres and nice people: Velo Rouge, Blue Danube, Bazaar, etc.
Yeesh, get rid of a few of those “coffee” references for me please, editor.
Also, if you want to bash “evil” chains, you’ll want to keep an eye on all of your purchases and alliances, not just coffee-related ones. I might add: If a business, any business, really cares about the products/services they offer (if, in the end, they realy do focus on customers)they will likely, given a stable economy and decent location(!), tend to inspire loyalty and build a business. If I go to an independent cafe and it blasts YOURFAVORITEMUSICHERE at me for hours on end, to the point where I find it impossible to converse, read, hear myself think, chances are I won’t go back. Also if they don’t care to clean I don’t care to sit at their sticky tables, usually (again, other factors can compensate–good art, nice people and, above all, drinkable coffee–not just ccinos but coffee, black). This continues, predictably–what do they offer? Some cafe owners and employees are so nice you’ll support them, some feature interesting art, music, readings, carefully prepared food, etc., which might compensate for undrinkable coffee, at least occasionally. Anyway, more complex than it seems, business.
it would be one thing if starbuck’s ascendancy was due only to a consistent product in a consumer-friendly environment. but the truth is that the company’s success was built, in part, on a predatory practice of putting competitors out of business by paying large bonuses to their landlords to dissolve leases and then rent the same location to starbucks. i am doubtful that this new branding strategy will amount to a real commitment to communities, any more than the occasional appearance of ‘fair trade’ coffees on the menu reflect any kind of genuine concern for the working conditions of those who pick the beans they sell.
There was an article in Slate a couple years ago about how Starbucks has actually helped independent coffee shops:
http://www.slate.com/id/2180301/
I don’t really like Starbucks or anything, but “bully” image they have isn’t always warranted.
Last I read up on the subject, there were more independent coffeehouses now, post-Starbucks, than there were before the Seattle behemoth arrived. The reason most likely being that Starbucks helped create a taste for fancy espresso drinks that then created opportunities for independent entrepreneurs (as well as, of course, more Starbucks locations).
I suspect (but don’t know) that this is more true in places that aren’t, for example, San Francisco, home to many coffeehouses for decades.
I hadn’t heard about the real estate practices that stephen mentions; according to No Logo, the Naomi Klein book, Starbucks stopped doing this after the practice became controversial. I’ve no idea if she’s right, but the first Google results to turn up, at least, were several years old.
starbucks is the devil. i hope no one falls for their sneaky little ploy.
that being said…damn, san francisco coffee shops, learn how to MAKE a cup, already! melissa is totally right that there is a huge lack of coffee shops in this city that serve anything remotely drinkable. and in the inner richmond? i can’t name one, and i lived there for 5 years. very sad times.
Re Stephen’s points:
but the truth is that the company’s success was built, in part, on a predatory practice of putting competitors out of business by paying large bonuses to their landlords to dissolve leases and then rent the same location to starbucks.
Point taken, however you’re talking here about a practice perpetrated by many large businesses, not just Starbucks. It’s a free-market issue, right? One of the flaws of capitalism (some would say) is that small fish get eaten by big fish, generally. In fact, starting small businesses costs a lot of money and most of them fail. If you’re saying Starbucks is stealing business from small independently run businesses right now–with the economy the way it is–I guess I’d want you to try to quantify how much business they’re taking. There isn’t a lot of capital out there for small businesses right now–also, some would argue that opening a Starbucks (depending on location) might actually draw more foot-traffic to local businesses, thus helping them and the community.
i am doubtful that this new branding strategy will amount to a real commitment to communities, any more than the occasional appearance of ‘fair trade’ coffees on the menu reflect any kind of genuine concern for the working conditions of those who pick the beans they sell.
Well sure, but similar complaints might be lodged against, say, oil companies, bottled water companies, agribusiness, car manufacturers, etc–companies that get huge tax breaks, steal public resources to sell them back to the public at a profit and, often, pollute the air, water, soil to boot.
So, I don’t know, in many ways I think Starbucks is an easy target with relatively low “evil” impact. But I’m not sure–haven’t done a ton of research on the company. If you have, I’d be interested to hear what you’ve discovered.
A bit more on fairness, caring for communities, selling fair trade: There are plenty of cafes in San Francisco and other places (there are one or two other places) that don’t sell ANY fair trade coffees or other products. There are also plenty of cafes that treat their employees poorly–certainly not offering anything close to health insurance benefits, for example.
To your point about their new branding strategy (which I guess is using local-sounding store names instead of “Starbucks”): Well, again, a lot of companies do this–they spin off product lines and stores with different names and features. I’m not saying I’m a fan of what seems to be a pretty transparently manipulative move but, again, this is a complaint that could easily be levied against any number of companies, some far more destructive than Starbucks.
For the record, I’m not particularly interested in defending Starbucks, but I am a little tired of seeing the same supposed villains attacked over and over again–especially when, as I said, there are more worthy opponents largely escaping notice/serious criticism. It’s a little like thinking you’re doing a lot to slow global warming by composting and recycling. Those are great things to do, sure, but the only real way to slow global warming is to institute laws that will (heavily and consistently) penalize big polluters.
There are many non-Starbucks cafes in SF that brew a great cup or do great espresso. Admittedly, most of the ones I know are concentrated in the Mission or in North Beach.
But as to the Inner Richmond, there’s north of Geary and there’s south of Geary. On the north side, Blue Danube Cafe and Martha & Bros both make a good cup (each is a couple blocks from Green Apple Books). But on the south side, there’s nowhere worth going to that I’m aware of, at least nowhere that doesn’t also serve breakfast.
Sure, the below is true and, actually, I never said that only Starbucks makes good coffee in SF–there’s plenty of good coffee to be had in the city at large, just not much in the Richmond District.
“There are many non-Starbucks cafes in SF that brew a great cup or do great espresso. Admittedly, most of the ones I know are concentrated in the Mission or in North Beach.”
I’m not a Johnny-Loves-Starbucks.
Have lived in the Richmond District for 16 years–outer, mid, inner–and was speaking only about the coffee in the Richmond District (was not including espresso drinks, which, I believe, Starbucks popularized in the U.S. market–another reason for their ascendancy, I’m guessing).
I was responding to e. lou.
Ah, okay.
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.