Haha!

Psyd wrote:Ferrari is in it to race. Period. The only reason (read: ONLY!) that they sell cars to consumers is to support their on-track endeavours. If they had other sources of income, Ferrari production models for consumers would disappear. Apples and oranges... if you want to compare business models, your examples should at least have some relevance to one another. Imagine a roaster and shop whose only goal was to win the WBC every year. Didn't care if he sold beans, or sold coffee out of his shops, just that his baristi were the WBC winners, and coffee sales went to support those baristi. That'd be Ferrari of espresso.

You're suggesting that their customers are paying for Ferrari's and are getting Hyundai's, and that that's OK?
It's the 'Dairyman's Dinner' paradox. "Yay! Steak again!"
It can only go on for so long, taking your profits our of sustainability. Starbucks is on the verge of becoming the equivalent of a convenience store.
Whatever they did in the past is no penance for the sins they've committed today.

I hereby promise to give my coffee analogies more thought in the future.

And yes I'm ok with that. People can choose not to buy Starbucks coffee. Most of us are living proof of that.

Gus wrote:This shop is located in down town Dreamland, next to a Shetland Unicorn ranch owned by a leprechaun who drives a flying car.

You laugh, Gus, but that's exactly Enzo's business model. That same thought process gave birth to the Lambo's, too. Lamborghini was a tractor builder who bought one of Enzo's racing machines. He had difficulties with the transmission, and brought it back to the factory in Maranello. He was all but dismissed as a dirt farmer who doesn't know his cars. He was, in fact, the son of a farmer, and used old military vehicles to convert them into tractors. From those old military trucks converted into tractors came enough money to buy a Ferrari, through his know-how and eventually starting a legitimate tractor company.
Well, Signori Lambo decided that he'd take a look, and replaced a clutch bit (throwout bearing? whatever...) with a tractor part, and the car did well. Ferrucio Lamborghini decided, that day, that he would make better cars than Enzo Ferrari and drive him out of business. The very fact that Enzo had decided to sell his car exclusively and only to support his race endeavours motivated Ferrucio to never support a factory Lamborghini racing effort.
I know, those weird Italians' yeah?

(Sorry, that was meant to be an aside to Gus in PM's, don't know what I was thinking. Anyhoo, if he enjoyed the off-topic rant, I hope that you did too... )

I have always loved the story of Ferrari and Lamborghini.

My original post was made in jest. I think it's a brilliant idea. This is my dream come true of a coffee shop. I would love for someone to use this model. I think the end result would be very similar to the success that Ferrari enjoys. While I think it would take some time for the success to build, I think it would be inevitable. I want to volunteer my home city of Fort Worth to be the host market. If you can find the venture capital to support the effort I will happily apply for a position.

If you can't find an investor I think this should be proposed to Star Bucks as the business model they should use to make up for all of the "good" they have done for the American coffee scene.

A new wrench to throw in the murky cogs of poor analogy:
If you can't beat them, join them.

In other news, McDonald's is trying to join the Slow Food Nation movement.

What's going on? Starbucks employees crowding 3rd wave cafés taking notes? Opening a store that's a carbon copy of the 4 other stores within blocks of it? I've never been to Seattle, but it looks pretty funny from the pictures floating around the internet. And now the question is, can multinational corporations fool consumers into thinking that they are just like the local fare of businesses? Will Starbucks Coffee taste better in a new bag?

Really the Starbucks story is similar to the McDonald's story. Ray Kroc had it right when he knew the seriously mobile Americans wanted consistency, speed and low prices. Like any other publicly held corporation, Starbucks had to keep growing and keep a steady return on capital. Their best asset was not the product, but the image. And they marketed the bejeezus out of it.

I go to starbucks fairly regularly and I live in one of the best saturated coffee markets in the world. Why would I go to a starbucks? Because I travel and the damn things are everywhere. I can remember trips where it was impossible to get anything other than instant coffee or some product which was completely indistinguishable from instant roasted on a warming pad. Hot and caffeinated were the best you could hope for. Now at least I can pull off a highway and get a cup of coffee which will be okay. No, it wont be the best I ever had. There is no artistry, no soul, no chance at something great. But it will be better than the old days, even if it costs more than the old $.10 for the swill in a styrofoam cup. If I can spot a local coffee shop, I'll chose that, but the odds are, I'm in a hurry, and the locals have no clue as to what makes a good espresso.

And it doesn't help that my daughter recognizes the mermaid as the place that Daddy will get a hot chocolate for her. My kids don't make noise about the golden arches, but they know that they can talk dad into pulling over for coffee.