drdna wrote:I suggest that "Third Wave" cafes have sprung up, NOT as any sort of rebellion against the Starbucks of the world, but simply because Starbucks has transformed its business model to the extent that a vacuum for smaller traditional cafes (similar to the original Starbucks) has again been created. However, there are clear signs that these smaller cafes are not truly in rebellion. Evidence enough the "Hammer and Sickle" branded merchandise available at San Francisco's Ritual Coffee Roasters, or that they have begun to distribute their coffee to other local cafes, as an example. The same fundamental business model is in action. It is merely as if we are seeing the embryonic Starbucks cafe, before the expansion. (That is what I mean by baby Starbucks).

Following this thought, and your indication that the third wave isn't really a wave of rebellion per se, what would the rebellion to a Starbucks look like in your eyes? Isn't the notion of "these guys lost the plot; I'm going to do what they did well, better, and not do what they did wrong" a form of rebellion? Or is it something else entirely?

I would venture to say that the true rebellion to *$ is the increasing number of people who are learning to make espresso in their own homes and, as a result, getting their palates educated as to what good espresso is capable of being.

But that's just me.

News from Ms. Ferraris via email -

The DVD will be released on June 30th, and the website will be changed by then - you'll be able to buy the DVD directly through the site - http://www.cappuccinomovie.com/?p=thefilm

And, sorta on topic, another good flick is Black Coffee - http://www.blackcoffeemovie.com/home.html

drdna wrote:I just got back from a screening of the movie, which drew a meager crowd of a dozen people in the audience, including friends of the director. I just want to know Chris Tacy's excuse for not showing up.

You mean this was just shown in SF, a fairly short drive away from me, and the director was there and I missed it????

I know! Where were you guys? I thought you had my back?

Well, now you just have to be satisfied with the DVD, I guess.

When the original Starbucks, which was focused on roasting and selling coffee, was bought out and taken over at the beginning of its subsequently meteoric rise, the focus of the business was changed and mass distribution with a standardized mass market fast food business approach was inherent in their strategy.

I don't go to cafes for the social aspects but it's nice when it's there. I go to have great coffee and/or espresso and that's exactly what I get. I cannot and never have gotten that from Starbucks. In my opinion it's a bit disingenuous to slam independent cafes for what you think they might be like ten years from now. I had espresso and coffee in the original Stumptown location the year after they opened - when it was still their only store. Fast forward to this past Labor Day weekend in Seattle. I went to one of their free daily public cuppings in Seattle, enjoyed stellar coffee and then followed it upstairs with an equally good macchiato and a straight espresso. If anything... they have raised the quality bar and improved their product. If you want to criticize their shtick I certainly won't quibble with that 'cause it doesn't impress me a whit. But they roast and serve great coffee and espresso and that DOES impress me.

I tried espresso at a few larger chain type places in Italy this year and it sucked almost as much as Starbucks - plus they had less appealing atmosphere as a place to hang out with your drink. As for the good espresso I had in some independent places.... comparing those to independent American cafes is apples to oranges - they have entirely different business models.

Phaelon56 wrote: In my opinion it's a bit disingenuous to slam independent cafes for what you think they might be like ten years from now.

I think that he's saying that Starbucks started out with some of the goals now espoused by the third wave shops, and it wouldn't take too much for some of those shops to fall into the same traps as Starbucks has. And if they follow the profit with little or no regard to the quality of the product, they probably will.
He's indicating that there is a potential, but the actions of the individual shops will dictate where they end up. Your suggesting that they can't end up like Starbucks because they haven't. That's probably a good sign that they won't, but no more an indication that they won't that his suggestion that they will. With Stumptown and Counter Culture expanding ever rapidly, there is always a chance that they will lose sight of their original creeds and succumb to the siren song (had to, couldn't resist) of ever-increasing profit margins, only to marginalize the end-product. I don't see it happening, myself, but the possibility remains.

I guess that's a fair comment in some sense, Chris, but I still see calling quality-committed shops with utter disdain for Starbucks and everything that they represent "baby Starbucks" as rather rude and alogical. It's really not fair to say that they have the potential to become just like Starbucks, simply because it's remotely possible. You have the potential to take the helm of Microsoft and become the world's next richest man. And the potential to snap and turn into Charles Manson. But people don't seriously consider characterizing you in this way, do they? I agree it's a disingenuous comment, particularly in the original context.

shadowfax wrote:You have the potential to take the helm of Microsoft and become the world's next richest man. And the potential to snap and turn into Charles Manson. But people don't seriously consider characterizing you in this way, do they?

I took it that he meant 'baby SB's' in the same way those folks were referred to as 'baby humans'. What they grow up to accomplish is yet to be seen. Sort like When Starbucks was young, you couldn't tell whether they were going to be the massive multi-national, uber-auto, convenience espresso operator, or just another great lil' roaster that served coffee.
These guys are in their infancy starting just as Starbucks did, and they could go either way, Manson or Microsoft.

If I misinterpreted it, then yes, I completely agree with your assessment.

Psyd wrote:Sort like When Starbucks was young, you couldn't tell whether they were going to be the massive multi-national, uber-auto, convenience espresso operator, or just another great lil' roaster that served coffee.

This is what's catching me. Nothing I've ever seen or read of Starbucks has ever struck me like Counter Culture, Intelligentsia, Cuvée, and others do. They were never committed to the principles that drive those companies. They never lost their principles because what they've done as a company isn't against their principles. For the third wave to become Starbucks (i.e. sacrifice freshness and quality for profit and mass scale) would be in essence for them to turn their backs on their core values, like a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde thing. Maybe this is all my confusion, but that's the understanding of the Green Witch from which my comments come.