Starbucks Coffee Co. - coming to Sheffield

[Tracie 10]

Originally posted by higgins

the problem with people in general is that they are thick as pig****. So they drink at Starbucks rather than a seriously good place like Moco. I would rather chew offf my own arm than drink at Starbucks.

 

Surely that's just expressing a personal opinion? If you don't like the coffee at Starbucks, then don't drink it. Go to a coffee shop you do like. If you do happen to like the coffee at Starbucks, go ahead and buy a cup. Problem solved.

[JoeP 11]

Originally posted by higgins

the problem with people in general is that they are thick as pig****. So they drink at Starbucks rather than a seriously good place like Moco. I would rather chew offf my own arm than drink at Starbucks.

 

It's so nice to see a supporter of freedom of choice be so understanding of other people's choices.

 

If someone chooses to drink coffee at Starbucks in preference to somewhere else, what's the problem?

 

I'm keen to see the evidence for the correlation between intelligence and where you drink coffee - but if taht's not possible please lay off labelling other forummers as stupid.

 

Joe

[JonJParr 10]

As I was walking down to work this morning (making sure I get those vital 20mins exercise!) I was thinking about this thread and how those of us who drank espresso in a corporate giant such as Starbucks had all been branded as idiots. Given that the brander had advocated that we should all drink at Moco on West Street I was eager to share my one (and only) experience of that establishment.

It was about 2 months ago and I was desperately hungry and wanted to quaff a double espresso and a croissant to curb my hunger. Unlike others on this forum my mind process was "I'm hungry, where can I grab something quick?" and not "I'm hungry, where's the nearest small business / ethical outlet?" Moco was the first place I saw and dived in. I ordered a double espresso and a croissant filled with cheese and ham (yum!). They offered to heat the croissant for me and I kindly accepted. The first disaster was when the espresso arrived - there was little or no crema (a sign of fresh, well-brewed espresso) and it was served in a teacup (espresso should be served in a vessel that is small and has thick walls to insulate the drink and maintain the crema). The taste? Disgusting. It was junk. As I suspected it tasted stale and luke warm. I couldn't bring myself to finish it because it was so awful. Next, the croissant- I waited and waited and waited and waited and nothing materialised. After about 10-12 minutes of sitting there it must have dawned on them about my croissant. By that time, it was completely incinerated and we had to start the entire process of heating it - again. I left unimpressed and vowed never to give them any of my cash in the future.

 

This morning, I was running slightly late and wanted to grab a quick bite on the way into the office. I remembered Starbucks on Devonshire Green and even though I didn't want a drink (I'd already made myself three beautiful shots of Illy espresso this morning) I did want a panini. I walked in, ordered my panini "grilled to go" and was politely informed it would take exactly three minutes. I sat down and waited and waited and waited and waited and waited. I got up and asked if my panini was ready yet and was told it was burnt and they would have to start all over again. At least they had the decency to offer me a free beverage though (naturally I picked the most expensive).

 

Just goes to show that customer experience isn't at the forefront of most businesses these days.....

[Deavon 10]

Originally posted by JonJParr

As I was walking down to work this morning (making sure I get those vital 20mins exercise!) I was thinking about this thread and how those of us who drank espresso in a corporate giant such as Starbucks had all been branded as idiots.

 

I know!

 

I must point out that although I have only been drinking at Starbucks in the last couple of months, I have been an idiot for much longer than that. Absolutely no correlation.

 

 

Seriously though I agree with JonJParr; each individual experience is going to be different depending on time of day, number of and ability of staff etc.

 

One of the best things about brands is that each business has to strive to achieve the set 'brand standards'. In that way at least you are guaranteed a benchmark. Also if that level of service is not provided you have easy means of recourse.

[sheffstar01 10]

I would like to make a few points to you all who continue to air there negative views surrounding starbucks!

Firstly starbucks is a choice if you dont like it you dont go in!

Thousands of people call into a store in the uk every day to drink what is a fine quality beverage, starbucks could not have grown so rapidly serving rubbish.

Many of you seem focused on the negatives but what about the positives? new jobs , new investment , support for local charity

And why all this moaning about there being 2 or 3 stores in sheffield , there are 2 costa coffee shops within 5 mins walking of each other in the city centre but i never see them mentioned!

Pick up a leaflet in store and you will find they pay more for there coffee that any1 else , they have dedicated farmers and only want the best quality , and are willing to pay a premium in order to get it , suppliers are looked after and paid a fair price.

Everyone has there own taste but you really should stop knocking something you dont understand , particually those thinking the name was derived from battlestar gallactica! I suggest you look it up!

[alchresearch 215]

Originally posted by sheffstar01

And why all this moaning about there being 2 or 3 stores in sheffield , there are 2 costa coffee shops within 5 mins walking of each other in the city centre but i never see them mentioned!

 

Manchester has NINE within a five mile radius. There must be something going for this chain if it can have a branch within five minutes walking distance of another.

[SiApps 10]

I agree with JonJParr and SheffStar01.

 

Starbucks, contrary to what Klein, Mobiot and their colleagues say, have never practised a cannibalisation strategy - they can be accused of aggressive market penetration strategies, but as has been well discussed by Jon and others, this is the nature of the world we live in and to hope for anything else is naive.

 

Francis Fukuyama, JK Galbraith and to a lesser extent, Will Hutton, have been setting down challenges to our global economic leaders in government and industry - Global capitalism is finding itself under increasing scrutiny and many globalisied brands need to be held up to the proverbial stoplight. However, Starbusks is not one of them!

 

Personally, I would choose Starbuck over a local shop. They have the power to change the way commodity and futures markets work in coffee and in fact do. They pay at least $1.20 per pound of coffee bought (Fair Trade price $1.26), in comparison to the market average of $0.55-$0.70 (fiscal year 2003). However, unlike Fair Trade, which is primarily concerned with human rights, Starbucks is concerned with the environmental impact of its activities in the bean belt (the coffee crowing regions of the world) as well.

 

When you buy Starbucks Coffee, you are ensuring sustainable farming practises are being developed, as well as the education of children and women. This ensures a future for growing regions (as there is a reported potential deficit in gourmet grade Arabica bean supply which increases the potential of those living in absolute poverty in the bean belt and beyond) and a future that is fairer and more sustainable.

 

If you don't like Starbucks as you find their coffee not to your likely, then fine. If you don't like Starbucks on ideological/political grounds, then although I disagree, that's your call.

 

However, for those complaining about the small business going out of business, then please don’t. The bigger picture is potentially more significant than the micro implications.

 

Starbucks are an example to what global brands can achieve (and they are only at the beginning of their journey) and a bench mark to the coffee growing industry

[sham71 10]

who are all these new users whose first post is a glowing recommendation of Starbucks??? Hmmmm............

[Guest]

:suspect:

[Disco_Cat 10]

It is interesting to have such knowledgeable advocates of Starbucks join the Forum, just a couple o questions however if Starbucks offers such a great deal to it’s farmers why does it not go for fair-trade status? oooh I remember it’s because their trying to save the environment, so what environmental charities support them? If star bucks are doing so much to save the planet organisations must be curing up to thank them

Originally posted by SiApps

However, for those complaining about the small business going out of business, then please don’t. The bigger picture is potentially more significant than the micro implications.

 

 

My real issue comes with this comment however. The bigger picture, more money for star bucks may be more important to you in the long term. But for the people whose livelihoods are destroyed by star bucks aggressive marketing the ‘micro implications’ are actually very important.

[SiApps 10]

Fair Trade was set up by CAFOD, Christian Aid and Oxfam in 1992 concerned with international trade and the situation producers are forced into – often selling their commodity at a loss. It is Fair Trade’s principle aim to establish trade justice!

 

Recent press demonstrate that Fair Trade certification is not the only option. The two links at the bottom of the page will begin to flesh out this issue.

 

The reason Starbucks does not provide 100% Fair Trade certified beans is because the certification process takes time, and is not concerned about the environmental impact of coffee growing. Starbucks aims to work with all stakeholders across the supply chain to encourage sustainability.

 

Starbucks Bensa Ware, Ethiopia campaign is a good illustration of this. The campaign built a reservoir, piping and wells and led to the building of the High School Daye. This school educates over 400 children and it actively encourages the education of women (important for the sustainable development agenda).

 

This campaign (a long with similar projects in Central and South America) was not only is good for the local community, but also helps to secure a good standard of bean supply for Starbucks in the future. I realise that it could be argued that Starbucks are not being 100% altruistic in their motives here, but surely the motive to secure bean supply whilst ensuring the social/human rights and environmental, as well as economic sustainability of a commercial organisation is something we should be encouraging all organisations to do.

 

It is unfortunate that in a globalised economy people fall by the way side, and it’s not just the little people who do – MG Rovers recent demise highlights this. However, why is the desire to see not only the 1.2 bn people living on less $1 per day, but also see the $4bn, approximately 2/3 of our global population, who live on less than $2 a day have an increase in their living standards a bad thing?

 

I realise I sound like am saying that the market economy is the saviour to the worlds development problems – this is far from my perspective. Capitalism is good at generating wealth and, if run ethically, can help alleviate the plight of the worlds poor.

 

Starbucks isn’t perfect, and I’m sure you could find examples of less than exemplary behaviour. Nevertheless, it is trying to create an ideal to help those it affects across its operations to live a fairer life.

 

What I am advocating is difficult to do justice in this forum. For those of you who are interested then “The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid – Eradicating Poverty through Profits” by C.K. Prahalad, as well as “Good Business” by Hilton and Gibbons are a good place to start. Globalegacy are also a useful resource.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1284479,00.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=2GBZODCHUQ0GDQFIQMFSM54AVCBQ0JVC?xml=/news/2004/11/27/weth27.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=26808

[Disco_Cat 10]

Another very interesting and informative post. The forum is very lucky to have such a well versed advocate of Starbucks as a member.

 

I’m a little bit bemused as to the links you provided however. The Telegraph supports the argument that certain companies such as Starbucks have tried to market their coffee as ethical in the hope of this being seen as a concession to fair trade, when in reality because these companies do not offer a guaranteed and fixed price a cornerstone of the fair trade principle.

 

Although the below paragraph from your source is aimed at a different company it could also apply to Starbucks,

 

"He said he was concerned that marketing a coffee as ethical or sustainable rather than specifically Fairtrade would confuse shoppers.

"I can't see the point of a label that says something has been produced in ethical conditions – that's what you should expect from any product."

As a result, consumers might assume that another product not marketed as ethical was "damaging to the environment or produced by child labour and so on".

He took a swipe at the Rainforest Alliance, which unlike Fairtrade does not guarantee farmers a minimum price, saying: "It doesn't address economic sustainability."

 

 

The issue of fair trade is a very complex one and it is not merely as simple as fair trade companies pay more for their coffee, as you pointed out Starbucks pays more, however the crux comes down to conditions of pay and a fixed price.

 

However if we keep this debate specific to Sheffield, once again you have not been able to address the concern many of us have ie that Starbucks are bankrupting independent Sheffield businesses and this is to the detriment of the local community. However your source does address this point:

 

"The growth of multinationals is just one aspect of globalisation, and the homogeneity it brings is regrettable."

 

I couldn’t agree with you more on this point.