« COMMENTS: What's Wrong With This Picture? | Main | Slow Food: Spring Has Sprung VIII »
Friday, April 08, 2005
Three Things About Starbucks
1) Starbucks continues their slide towards being the McDonald's of Slow Food. I went to their new location near Notre Dame, only to find out that in many of their stores they're replacing the espresso machines, and the famous baristas who operated them, with automated machines that eliminate the skill of the barista.
The "expert" baristas used to be touted as one of the reasons for the quality of a cup of coffee from Starbucks. Will they lower their prices now that they've eliminated that from the equation?
2) The new store in South Bend is directly across the street from an earlier Starbucks. They frequently open branches across the street from each other, knowing that one of the two won't survive. But in the meantime, they hope, other coffee bars in the neighborhood will have gone out of business.
There are 5 Starbucks within a 5 minute walk of my New York apartment. Two other coffee places within that radius went out of business, and another one is hurting, even though they provide much more personal service.
3) On a scale measuring national increase in caffeine consumption per year, can Coca Cola even approach Starbuck's affect on America? In New York, people used to drink 6 or 8 ounce cups of coffee with breakfast and sometimes at restaurants. Now it seems like every other New Yorker walks around holding a 16 oz cup of Starbucks coffee. The real thing is served in Italy and France in cups a quarter of the size, or less, of ours.
Bonus Point: Starbucks has also introduced the drive thru window to expensive espresso. You can search for drive thru locations at Starbucks.com. The new South Bend store has one.
“Drive thru coffee bar” seems like an oxymoron.
April 8, 2005 in Food and Drink | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bff5053ef00d8345860ab69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Three Things About Starbucks:
» Starbucks Redux from Veritas et Venustas
Re my earlier Starbucks post, Rob Assumendi had it right: Yes, it's interesting how Starbucks creates a modicum of social space in places where there was none and hurts local business where there is plenty. A friend in the Chicago suburbs would love a ... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 20, 2005 12:04:17 PM
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
"They frequently open branches across the street from each other, knowing that one of the two won't survive. But in the meantime, they hope, other coffee bars in the neighborhood will have gone out of business."
I believe that's an another urban myth. It is certainly not my own observation.
Posted by: David Sucher at Apr 9, 2005 7:27:31 AM
Btw, that's not my observation on bothe counts - either that trhey expect one store to survive or that they they drive indies ouf business.
In fact, I'd suggest that if you look at last 15 years, they have driven indies INTO business.
Posted by: David Sucher at Apr 9, 2005 7:29:17 AM
I agree with you, David, many of the local coffee chains have followed in Starbucks' wake. And, to mix my nautical metaphors, it often seems to be a case where a rising tide lifts all ships.
At the same time, one of the top execs of Starbucks confirmed both counts with a friend of mine. Over the years, there have been a few Starbucks facing each other across Manhattan streets, and I can't think of a single case where both survived.
Very near the 2 South Bend Starbucks I mentioned (one inside the local supermarket branch nearest to the Notre Dame campus, the other across the street on one corner of a major intersection), is a local outlet called Lulu's. All three are 100% dependent on patrons who've driven to them. We'll see how Lulus stands up to the drive thru Starbucks, which also has a custom designed building that's one of the chicest Starbucks I've seen. I don't like their standard decor, but this one only has a little of it, because most of wall space is taken up by a wooden service area on two sides, and floor to celing windows on the other two.
Posted by: john massengale at Apr 9, 2005 9:08:40 AM
Of course I have to admit that I know personally of only one instance where there Starbucks are located literally acropss the street from each other and that is in Vancouver BC and to the best of my knowledge they are still there -- at least 6-7 years later.
Posted by: David Sucher at Apr 10, 2005 10:38:06 AM
Let's step back for a moment and ignore Starbucks as a business.
The idea of a coffeeshop where you go to only drink coffee and talk to friends (without having to sit at a table and be waited upon) is fairly new to the United States suburban experience.
Here's an example:
I used to live in a suburb of Fort Lauderdale called Weston. It is car-dependent and very spread out. It has had strip malls for almost 20 years. Until the arrival of Starbucks, there were absolutely no places where you could go and sit outside to enjoy coffee. Actually, there were no coffee bars.
Starbucks was the first business to introduce outdoor seating for coffeee in this suburb. Other coffee shops followed, mainly independent ones.
It brought an informal sidewalk life to my local strip mall in a way that no other business had tried.
Like you, I don't like Starbucks, but it changed the way people looked at srip malls in my town.
Now I live in New York, and am glad not to be there anymore...
Posted by: Luis Bustamante at Apr 11, 2005 1:51:59 PM
Yes, it's interesting how Starbucks creates a modicum of social space in places where there was none and hurts local business where there is plenty. A friend in the Chicago suburbs would love a Starbucks nearby since there's no such thing as a coffeeshop in his town. Here in Bellingham, WA everyone is up in arms (myself included) that a Starbucks has moved in downtown and threatens our favorite local (morphologically and socially superior) coffeeshops.
Not only does Starbucks have the power to spontaneously generate coffeeshops where there were none, it appears to also have the power to spontaneously generate yuppies as well. I had no idea we even had those in Bellingham until it opened a couple weeks ago.
Posted by: Rob Asumendi at Apr 12, 2005 11:10:17 AM
> Yes, it's interesting how Starbucks
> creates a modicum of social space
> in places where there was none and
> hurts local business where there is
> plenty
Yes, that's it in a nutshell.
I've been to Starbucks hundreds of times. I recognize their virtues, and I'm not against chains on principle. But I do think they're sliding into being the McDonalds of Slow Food, and that's not a good thing.
Posted by: john massengale at Apr 12, 2005 11:16:06 AM
There are local cafes that I patronize in my neighborhood, the old agricultural village core of a sprawling exurb of San Francisco (Vacaville, CA). The service is a little more personal. But, I'll be honest, I also walk over to the semi-downtown Starbucks, sometimes, because it is so popular and has the pleasant buzz of a "Third Place." I'm sure it does twice the volume of the two locals. (their counter help, while pleasant, doesn't buy treats for my dogs, though :) )
Posted by: Brian Miller at Apr 14, 2005 2:21:44 AM
I think this is standard complaining. For each person's opinion, somebody else has a contrary one. A hipster dufus likes the quirky local coffee shop. A person in a wheel chair wants to sue the local coffee shop because it is not handicapped accessible. Starbucks donates to Democrats, not Republicans. If you don't like their coffee, don't drink it. Enjoy the gentrification while it lasts. As home mortgage rates go up, there will be a real estate correction and many of the yuppies will disappear. I'm surprised nobody has taken any potshots at whole foods yet.
Posted by: charles wang at Apr 16, 2005 1:32:53 AM
What's wrng with an American business succeeding on a large scale? Their coffee is good and, importanty, consistent in quality, which I don't find at most local places (I've tried so many of them, since I have been drinking cappuccinos and other espresso drinks almost every day for 15 years). Starbucks isn't doing anything wrong to my knowledge. People go there because they like it. If you don't like it, don't go there.
Now Starbucks is putting up shops in places like inner-city Milwaukee, which I think is geat.
Posted by: Kristin at Jul 15, 2007 4:22:37 PM
Besides, what's wrong with Yuppies? Would you rather people be poor?
Posted by: Kristin at Jul 15, 2007 4:24:55 PM
One more thing -- I have been to the new Starbucks at Notre Dame, across the street from Martin's Super Market, and love it. When I went to school there, there was no where to go to hang out. Now there is. There's also a local place, Lulu's, that was ushered in by the coffee revolution spurred nationally by Starbucks.
Posted by: Kristin at Jul 15, 2007 4:27:51 PM
Kristin,
You make a lot of points. Taking some of them individually:
South Bend's (not Notre Dame's) biggest problem is that you have to drive everywhere for everything. The downtown has been gutted by Urban Removal, and even if you live there, as I did, you can't meet most of your needs without getting in a car and driving there.
It won't surprise you when I say I don't want a hangout that's surrounded on all sides by parking lot. There are a couple of places downtown that I think are better.
I've been to Starbucks a hundred times in the past year. This isn't a black and white, all good or all bad issue. Take a look at this link. The coffee at the second place is better. The food at the second place is better. The architecture at the second place is incomparably better. And the money you spend at the second place goes to a Coral Gables resident, instead of to a corporation in Seattle.
So why is everyone going to the first place, Starbucks?
We're all yuppies now. There are good things about yuppies and bad things about yuppies. I'm not sure what you're referring to.
John
Posted by: john at Jul 16, 2007 10:20:39 AM
