A nicely written, nicely paced and well argued piece. A real joy to read. May sense is Starbucks is like KFC: everywhere and the yardstick by which to judge others. That doesn’t make the yardstick good. It’s just that reference point where the question “better than Starbucks?” Is universally understood, even if it means slightly different things to different people.
I'm a Boomer, and I feel like they just charge too much for what you get. That being said, if I'm in a strange place and want coffee I know exactly what I'll get at Starbucks and don't have to worry about finding a decent place in a decent neighborhood.
Well they would need to start with the bean. Their coffee is pretty dreadful. Bottom line is that they would have to dismantle a fair bit of their model in order to achieve this. Their model is the one whose logo says “product continuity—our coffee is the same here as it is in Fort Worth, and you can count on it!”, which is diametrically opposed to the charm of a one of a kind coffee shop (you know the one—their Latte changed your life, and the handmade scones there are to die for).
It’s a big ask. They have really designed their business to sell predictable caffeine to the overworked-always-in-a-rush American in a quick, efficient manner.
Think Starbucks has too many accountants focused on next quarteds results, and not enough grasp of the market.
Poor quality coffee. Recent uk study showed Starbucks coffee is weaker than the decaf versions from one or two of rhe major competitors. Not sure tou are right that starbucks are the absolute worst for coffee (macdonalds? KfC?) but they are in the wrong tail of the distribution. Of the UK chains, Costa, Nero, Pret, and Greggs are all streets ahead of them.
Also very poor food offerings - nothing that i would want to eat. A good third space imho really needs some non rubbish food offerings...
Charlie, you bring up some excellent points. Starbucks started out as a dream. A moment of nostalgia for those European coffee bars on every corner. Where business workers stopped for their morning hit of espresso. A place to meet up with friends. A place to drink coffee and read a book. But then, capitalism took over and squashed any feelings of nostalgia. Everything had to be bigger, double size. Grande, please. Would you like a Venti instead? It’s more. It’s bigger. Sure. Then came the Frappuccino’s. The specialty drinks. The teas. The mass produced pastries. When I had to get a coffee fix on the road because there was no other option, I would watch overworked baristas pumping out one drink after another, in an endless parade of drink tickets. Two pumps of vanilla. Three pumps of caramel. Extra sugars. No foam. Half-calf, no whip, low fat, semi-dry mocha with a sprinkle of nutmeg. We all wanted it our own way and we all wanted it fast. Starbucks became a victim of its own success and involuntarily turned into a fast food restaurant. Sometimes, I think that we, the consumers were at fault. We always crave something new, instead of the familiar. And Starbucks had to come up with new creations and new innovative drinks to grab our attention again. Call it hubris, call it corporate greed, call it growth for the sake of the shareholders. Starbucks grew so large, it has nearly crushed itself under its own weight of success. Gone are the nostalgic thoughts of that corner neighborhood coffee shop. The place that feels like a familiar meeting spot. The store that you can stop in and grab an espresso at the counter. Those days are in the rear view mirror and no longer even a fleeting memory. Perhaps there is no going back. Perhaps the nail is in the coffin and we are only waiting for the hammer to drop, pounding out its last strike as the nail is driven deep into the wood of finality. But maybe, just maybe, there may be hope in nostalgia. Maybe, Starbucks can reinvent itself. Go back to its roots. Become that place that was the memory of that small Italian coffee shop tucked away in an alley in Rome. Where friends could meet for a cappuccino and catch up. Where workers could pop in for a quick espresso. That was the place where Starbucks found its success, and where people felt that nostalgia that brought them inside in the first place.
I never went to Starbucks (not available in my country for a long time) to drink their coffee. Many times I just used it as a study or working place -‘ordering perhaps a bottle of water, or a tea.
In Milan, long before Starbucks, there was Arnold coffee - which had to close because it was not profitable. People used it to hang out, not to drink (even if coffee was incredibly better
A nicely written, nicely paced and well argued piece. A real joy to read. May sense is Starbucks is like KFC: everywhere and the yardstick by which to judge others. That doesn’t make the yardstick good. It’s just that reference point where the question “better than Starbucks?” Is universally understood, even if it means slightly different things to different people.
Loved this piece
I'm a Boomer, and I feel like they just charge too much for what you get. That being said, if I'm in a strange place and want coffee I know exactly what I'll get at Starbucks and don't have to worry about finding a decent place in a decent neighborhood.
Well they would need to start with the bean. Their coffee is pretty dreadful. Bottom line is that they would have to dismantle a fair bit of their model in order to achieve this. Their model is the one whose logo says “product continuity—our coffee is the same here as it is in Fort Worth, and you can count on it!”, which is diametrically opposed to the charm of a one of a kind coffee shop (you know the one—their Latte changed your life, and the handmade scones there are to die for).
It’s a big ask. They have really designed their business to sell predictable caffeine to the overworked-always-in-a-rush American in a quick, efficient manner.
Think Starbucks has too many accountants focused on next quarteds results, and not enough grasp of the market.
Poor quality coffee. Recent uk study showed Starbucks coffee is weaker than the decaf versions from one or two of rhe major competitors. Not sure tou are right that starbucks are the absolute worst for coffee (macdonalds? KfC?) but they are in the wrong tail of the distribution. Of the UK chains, Costa, Nero, Pret, and Greggs are all streets ahead of them.
Also very poor food offerings - nothing that i would want to eat. A good third space imho really needs some non rubbish food offerings...
BDS is hurting Starbucks too.
Yes, oh, yes! We're blessed with many 3rd wave coffeeshop options while or local Starbucks is rundown, shabby, and expensive....
Charlie, you bring up some excellent points. Starbucks started out as a dream. A moment of nostalgia for those European coffee bars on every corner. Where business workers stopped for their morning hit of espresso. A place to meet up with friends. A place to drink coffee and read a book. But then, capitalism took over and squashed any feelings of nostalgia. Everything had to be bigger, double size. Grande, please. Would you like a Venti instead? It’s more. It’s bigger. Sure. Then came the Frappuccino’s. The specialty drinks. The teas. The mass produced pastries. When I had to get a coffee fix on the road because there was no other option, I would watch overworked baristas pumping out one drink after another, in an endless parade of drink tickets. Two pumps of vanilla. Three pumps of caramel. Extra sugars. No foam. Half-calf, no whip, low fat, semi-dry mocha with a sprinkle of nutmeg. We all wanted it our own way and we all wanted it fast. Starbucks became a victim of its own success and involuntarily turned into a fast food restaurant. Sometimes, I think that we, the consumers were at fault. We always crave something new, instead of the familiar. And Starbucks had to come up with new creations and new innovative drinks to grab our attention again. Call it hubris, call it corporate greed, call it growth for the sake of the shareholders. Starbucks grew so large, it has nearly crushed itself under its own weight of success. Gone are the nostalgic thoughts of that corner neighborhood coffee shop. The place that feels like a familiar meeting spot. The store that you can stop in and grab an espresso at the counter. Those days are in the rear view mirror and no longer even a fleeting memory. Perhaps there is no going back. Perhaps the nail is in the coffin and we are only waiting for the hammer to drop, pounding out its last strike as the nail is driven deep into the wood of finality. But maybe, just maybe, there may be hope in nostalgia. Maybe, Starbucks can reinvent itself. Go back to its roots. Become that place that was the memory of that small Italian coffee shop tucked away in an alley in Rome. Where friends could meet for a cappuccino and catch up. Where workers could pop in for a quick espresso. That was the place where Starbucks found its success, and where people felt that nostalgia that brought them inside in the first place.
I never went to Starbucks (not available in my country for a long time) to drink their coffee. Many times I just used it as a study or working place -‘ordering perhaps a bottle of water, or a tea.
In Milan, long before Starbucks, there was Arnold coffee - which had to close because it was not profitable. People used it to hang out, not to drink (even if coffee was incredibly better