![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-332258-100x100.png\")
Starbucks is dead. Long live Starbucks!
Starbucks is dead. Long live Starbucks!
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
Boy, this sure feels like the invasion of the pod people. I feel especially sorry for all the independents put out of business by these vultures. Perhaps the independents can still prevail with better coffee, home-made baked goods, and more reasonable prices. One can only hope...
@jpdanzig:
Typical knee-jerk anti-corporatism. Starbucks created the industry, and multiplied demand. Here in Philadelphia I know of no existing coffee shops closing because of a Starbucks opening. Several have failed because they sucked, but that's different. The good shops are doing better than ever, and they can thank Starbucks for making coffee trendy. Most communities rejoice when a Starbucks opens.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-566832-100x100.png\")
@rdclark: What?!!! Maybe on the east coast, but we west coasters have had access to espresso shops for a long time. In Salem Oregon, we had The Beanery operated by Allen (Allan?) Brothers out of Corvallis Oregon 15 or 20 years before the first Starbucks opened in Salem.
Also, while the existence of Starbucks may have helped to educate coffee consumers in general and improve the overall outlook for coffee shops, there are plenty of specific instances of independents getting hurt; particularly in small towns.
@rdclark: Created the industry my ass. Coffee shops have been around long before Starbucks. They may have increased demand and I have not noticed shops closing because of Starbucks either, but they did not create the coffee shop.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-66824-100x100.png\")
@NatalieErin: Hate to say it, but I have to agree with rdclark. Starbucks - as much as I can't stand their coffee -- created a coffeehouse culture in this country that simply did not exist in places like outside Seattle. Sure, in NYC, we had diners and \"coffeeshops\" that were really restaurants, but the kind of smallish coffee-only cafe? Not really.
@Mr_Human: I know I already mentioned this, but that's bull. Every medium sized city on the west coast had coffee shops long before Starbucks moved out of Washington state.
@jpdanzig: Joke (To go with \"Perhaps the independents can still prevail with better coffee, home-made baked goods, and more reasonable prices.\")
Q: Why hasn't Starbucks ever been the target of arson?
A: Everything's already burnt.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-70468-100x100.png\")
@jpdanzig: I recently read an article saying that Starbucks actually (though unintentionally) helps local coffee shops. I don't know if this will apply to the non-Starbucks Starbucks as well.
@jpdanzig: There is nothing unethical about Starbucks opening stores that are branded differently than the rest of the chain.
The talk of Starbucks running local shops at of business is attributed to Starbucks opening multiple stores in the area and operating at a loss to crowd out the competition.
Consumerist recently linked an article indicating that in many cases this fear was unrealized - the Starbucks in the area increased overall coffee consumption, helping boost the business at the local shop.
@BWoodle: The problem I see is that Starbucks is making the new stores look independent. Starbucks did romanticize coffeehouse culture across the US, but they also became understood as the big, homogeneous brand. People who became really interested in coffee began to seek out indie coffee shops, so their sales were boosted.
However, if Starbucks and other brands open up enough unbranded, pseudo-indie coffee shops, many customers won't know which shops are local and which shops are part of a national company.
So long as they continue to include the \"Inspired by Starbucks\" line, I guess that's not so much an issue. Still, \"inspired\" doesn't quite convey that this is a store owned by Starbucks. I could say that I wrote a song inspired by 80's pop, but that doesn't mean I'm a pop artist from the 80's.
@TVarmy: There's nothing inherently evil about opening up unbranded stores. What it *is* is a good marketing tactic, responding to consumer demand for less corporatized stores. Sure, they're still owned by Starbucks, but why not let individual consumers rate each independent franchise, branded or not, on its own merits. If the unbranded not-Starbucks provide supply for that demand, if they fit the niche, then good on the company for responding to demand in a successful way.
My preference is to not go to Starbucks because I don't like paying ridiculous amounts for a drink simply because of the logo on the cup. If the not-Starbucks provide me with drinks at a price I deem reasonable, and provide those drinks in a manner I deem tasty, then there's nothing stopping me. (Except for the fact that I'm Canadian and will generally choose Tim Horton's over any other coffee and Second Cup over frou-frou coffee-esque fancy drinks when given the option for pure patriotism's sake.)
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-537475-100x100.png\")
I'm wondering whether I'll see a few more \"indie\" shops pop up and whether I'll get the sneaking suspicion that they're Starbucks incognito.
By the way...anyone have recommendations for a good indie coffee shop in downtown DC?
@jpdanzig: To be fair to Starbucks, a lot of coffee shops fail not because there's a Starbucks nearby - it's because people aren't paying attention to them, or they don't have a good location, or they don't have a good marketing strategy.
@pecan 3.14159265: Or their coffee tastes like ass. It is actually possible to make an espresso drink worse than Starbucks. We have one local group of coffee shops that has really awful coffee.
Apparently coffee drinkers like to pay a lot for their beverages. Otherwise Starbucks would have been out of business a long time ago. If anything the local shops need to charge more.
@wkm001:
Do you buy coffee? Where else can you get a freshly-brewed 20oz cup of good coffee for under $2? In most restaurants you pay that much for 8oz of lukewarm dishwater.
Starbuck doesn't overcharge for coffee. They created a demand for specialty coffee-based drinks, and that's what's expensive.
@wkm001: All the local shops I've been to charge the same $2 for a 16 oz coffee that Starbucks does. Same for the $4 whatever-crap that my wife gets.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-358755-100x100.png\")
I still prefer 7-11 or QT coffee over the overpriced Starbucks any day of the week.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16563-100x100.png\")
@CaptZ: 7-11 coffee is to Starbucks as is their hot dogs to a Texas BBQ. But nice of you to prove the point that decent coffee isn't for everyone.
@AreYouConfusedYet?HowAboutNow?: \"Magical\"? $0.15 of HFCS fizzy water sold for $2.00? Magical for whom?!
@CaptZ: 7-11 only does drip, so unless it's like 50 cents a cup, you're not saving much over the drip coffee at Starbucks.
@pecan 3.14159265: 7/11 is magical when it comes to beverage prices.
I don't know about their coffee, but a Double Gulp is like $2 with tax.
Why all the Starbucks hate? The consumer owes a lot to Starbucks.
If it wasn't for Starbucks, fast-food joint coffee in this country would still be $1/cup. Asking for a few hundred calories of whipped cream and syrup to be put on top would result in odd looks from the cashier!
Have we forgotten the dystopic past from whence we came?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-63807-100x100.png\")
@rpm773: Yes. People have selective memories, that result in distorted visions of the past, in which America had a vibrant, independent, organic, local specialty coffee scene.
You know, instead of the realty where there was terrible Bunn drip coffee in every cafe, Folger's Robusta in the store, and your mamma was using a percolator.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-228919-100x100.png\")
Shameless Plug: Next door to this Starbucks is a place called Smith. Best burger in the world!
@tgrwillki: Well let's fly a burger from Seattle and Atlanta to somewhere in the middle... we'll say Texas. Then we'll know for sure.
@shibainu33: Do you like to eat Dick's? They may not be gourmet, but there is something about them that people seem to like, besides being able to say, \"Who wants to eat Dick's?\" with a straight face.
I think many coffee shops lost their way in the need to compete. Things aren't the way they used to be, where you'd be able to shoot the breeze with the barista as they made your drinks, etc... Now, it seems more geared to push through customers.
I still go to one small local coffee shop that never changed. New people over time, but it has the friendly atmosphere most shops have lost. I always buy my beans there, too. I step foot in Starbucks once every 6-8 months. I'd much rather hit up Borders if I go to a chain. Many times on Fridays I've seen a local musician performing, another thing you rarely get to see.
I never thought there was a difference between your normal drip and slow coffee until I had a cup of Intelligensia in Chicago last weekend. That was the freaking best cup of coffee I've ever tasted. So, I'll probably try this place as a treat and not as my default I need caffeine place.
@Trulymadlyme: I brew their beans every morning at home. They are incredible. Usually roasted the week before, not 6 months before like Starbs.
So does this Starbucks use the same coffee flavors? Pike's Place, Verona, etc. If so, that would be a pretty dead giveaway that it was a Starbucks.
@BWoodle: That'd also mean it sucks.
Seriously, I don't have anything against Starbucks in principle. I recognize what they did to build the market for specialty coffee in America. But their coffee is bad. Really bad. Like, I can taste how bad it is just thinking about it. And it's consistently bad, because the Starbucks flavor is designed that way.
So if the Stealthbucks tastes the same, what's the point?
Maybe someone should occasionally slap a Starbucks logo on the door (a window cling so it's not vandalism).
@lihtox: If you look at the pictures in TFA, it has \"Inspired by Starbucks\" written directly underneath its sign.
@BWoodle: In a comparision it's like Abercrombie's \"Ruehl\" stores or \"Hollister\". Starbucks isn't trying to be covert about it's \"spin-off\" stores. Why's everyone griping? If someone is too stupid to read the \"inspired by Starbucks\" store on the door, and thinks it's a local store, they deserve what they get.
So they're doing what they USED to do - actually pull espresso shots themselves, scoop coffee beans, etc. - then decided to do away with for the sake of speed, then fired all their high-paid, knowledgeable baristas and hired glorified monkeys to make their coffee, and got surprised when people didn't like paying higher prices for coffee that was easier to make? Wow.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1230539-100x100.png\")
@morganlh85: I worked for Starbucks (while in university) a long time ago- when they first launched the brand in the UK.
We were trained for a week on the original, manual Marzocco espresso machines before even being allowed into the store. We were taught how to time shots to ensure they tasted perfect, et cetera. After a couple of years they started bringing in the automatic machines that shot out espresso faster (though if you were an efficient, well-trained barista you could actually work faster on the manual machines!) It became much more about volume than quality.
I won't even drink the coffee from Starbucks. Every time I order an espresso based beverage it tastes burnt or like the shot has been sitting there far too long- really bitter.
@morganlh85: For the record, this new place does not have \"manual\" espresso machines. I got all excited when I read that and then went and looked at the pictures. It's your typical three group automatic high volume machine. Of course, there's nothing wrong with that, automatics, (as opposed to the fully automated machines in Starbucks,) make great coffee. I just like manual machines out of nostalgia. (Manual machines are the ones with a big lever on top for each group and a piston that forces the water through the grounds. The aren't any better than properly maintained pump-driven automatics, they just look cooler. The fully automated machines on the other hand, suck.)
@sophistiKate: It's like the Grocery Shrink and Anti-Shrink Ray. The former is stealth and happens under cover of darkness. The latter gets trumpeted with a big banner that says \"Now 33% more!\"
People have selectively short memories, so this trick works surprisingly well in various fields.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-214940-100x100.png\")
@morganlh85: Thanks for pointing that out. I was pretty annoyed when they put in the completely automated espresso machines. (Hello? What am I paying for if no one here knows how to make espresso?) So the fact that they're billing undoing those supposed improvements in that PR snippet up there is especially galling.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-222420-100x100.png\")
Business strategy: find a local Starbucks, put your coffee shop next door. Charge less. Profit.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-41264-100x100.png\")
@vastrightwing: That wouldn't necessarily work. Huge percentage of the population is purely brand-loyal. Dumb, yes, but true.
In any case, I don't drink coffee...unless it comes free with my IKEA breakfast.
This is awesome.
I hope the place is packed with elitist coffee snobs who sit around and talk about how awful Starbucks is and how this place is just soooooo much better.
Bless your hamster-wearing heart for mentioning The Captain, Laura. :)
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-298926-100x100.png\")
So if they didn't want people to think it's a Starbucks why do they have \"Inspired by Starbucks\" everywhere? I thought the point was to get people that didn't want to goto Starbucks, if I saw inspired by Starbucks and I didn't like Starbucks I wouldn't go there because I would think they just try to mimic Starbucks but didn't want to rip of their design or coffee names because they thought they might get sued by Starbucks. To me it's like taking a step backwards.
@midwestkel: I don't think it was ever about Starbucks trying to sneak under the radar. It wouldn't be possible to keep something like this a secret.
This is about Starbucks experimenting with building a cafe more suited to the neighborhood in which it is located.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-129346-100x100.png\")
I'm going to jump right into the middle of this by stating the obvious: many independent coffeehouses usually SUCK at cleanliness and customer service.
There are two indies in my neighborhood -- as many as Starbucks. But I find the consistency of the brew varies, the stores a little to \"earthy\" to downright un-hygenic, and the wait intolerable. I've written a letter to the owners of the dirty store but never received a response. At my local Starbucks, they do ten times the volume and the store is still cleaner than the indie. Furthermore, the manager is always on-duty and knows me, if not my name, by face.
At my last (and very last) visit to one of the indies, I, the only customer, waited 10 minutes for my latte (which they overcharged me for) while the two employees gossiped about the customer who just left as if I wasn't there. The only other customers were two NYPD who showed up for their complimentary cup.
I still frequent my second indie but only when there are less than 10 people on line. While my second indie makes an amazing latte, the layout of the shop is incredibly awkward and impossible to get in and out of for the bad layout. I can only enjoy this when I have a spare 20 minutes as the line moves extremely slowly no matter how many are manning the counter. Oh, and they're cash only.
For as much bad rap as Starbucks gets, the important lesson is that if you are going to open a business -- run it like a business, not a hobby. Let your passion shine through, but in the end, it's all about treating your customers to a good all-around experience, cleanliness and credit cards included.
I'm sure someday another coffee shop will rise up to get my business -- the one who values my business most will always get it.
I totally agree with this. I've never been to an independent coffee house that gives me as good of an experience overall as most Starbucks locations do, most of the time. I like supporting independent businesses - my dad was a small business owner for most of his career - but I'm not going to spend that kind of money on a latte that tastes burnt, and/or after waiting in line 20 minutes and/or after dealing with incredibly stuck-up employees, just to spite Starbucks. Who, for all their faults, usually can make what I want well, and quickly, and they're nice about it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-31376-100x100.png\")
Starbucks = Local business when you're in Seattle.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-406173-100x100.png\")
Starbucks needs a wacky cartoon character, like the Burger King.
That's the ticket.
Or maybe not.
That store still looks overly-themed, something locals wouldn't do. It's almost like Disney designed a coffee shop with their budget and design crew, having never been to an actual local coffee house.
Agreed with the sentiment of \"meechybee\" above... the reality is that Starbucks does a reliably great job of doing what it does.
The harsh reality is that most local espresso places just aren't great. I use an HX machine at home to make my latte every morning and have pretty high espresso standards, most local places don't live up to my standards. Starbucks doesn't live up to my standards either, but it is reliably a \"Starbucks latte\" and the service is always great.
Things other shops should learn from starbucks:
* Cleanliness
* Service with a smile (regardless of how annoying the customer may be, or how illogical their request)
* Reasonable prices (sbux is not cheap, but it's reasonable; most local places seem to charge more)
* Favorable store layout (people like to come hang out, sbux does a good job of being a \"neighborhood place\")
* Actually care about the espresso
MY BIGGEST BEEF: \"Local\" places whose business plan is to buy a $1k espresso machine, throw a non-barista at it, and charge $4/cup for one shot of bad espresso with burned milk and some lousy Torani syrup.
Those places are much worse than Starbucks, and they're the places that keep people like me stopping at a Starbucks when traveling through a place with potential \"local\" shops.
DAZ BOG in the Denver area is the closest I've seen to a Starbucks killer... they make their own (great!) roast, make reliably fantastic espresso/lattes, and have a good gameplan with their stores. I hope they'll continue to grow (and make it to my area).
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-103034-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-487473-100x100.png\")
Hey Consumerist.. I think its 15th ave not 5th ave!
@bkdlays: You are correct. I live nearby. Walked by it last night (it was closed). My favorite part is the lettering on the window beneath the name: \"Inspired by Starbucks\". HUH?!