MattB wrote:While sitting in on PF podcast #50, John Hornall stated that he believed Bronwen Serna was the greatest promotional tool that happened to Hines Public Market Coffee. I interpreted his statement to mean that because she worked her ass off and became the USBC champion, consumers sought her out. In doing so, the consumer found him or herself at Hines. I think this promotes coffee because it gave that shop the opportunity to present quality coffee which was hopefully recognized by the consumer as a new standard of what coffee could and should be.

Let's cut the average coffee consumer out of the equation since I'm expecting an argument that the competitions aren't a spectator sport, and people outside the professional coffee community aren't aware and don't give a sh** about the comps. Fine. The pro baristas DO pay attention to what's happening in competition, and they seek out the winning barista to check out their shop, coffee, technique, etc. so it can be applied at their shop with hopes of offering the best possible experience to their customer.

When the winning barista is asked what their espresso consists of, the green buyer and roaster wants their name in the answer. I believe that plays a role in pursuit of quality green sourcing and roasting.

If an espresso machine company says they don't care if their machine is sitting on that competition table, they are full of it. I'm sure that EVERY machine builder wants their machine on that table which in turn is continuously elevating machine technology and build quality.

I don't think the competitions have been or will be the sole factor in the elevation of quality coffee, but I do believe the competitions result in tangible effects which synergistically promote and benefit the specialty coffee industry.

Matthew Brinski

Bronwen is a great barista, whom I've met a couple of times, most recently at Schomer's new place across from the huge REI in Seattle, in June. And Hines was a treasure, the loss of which is Seattle's and the gain will ultimately be Vancouver's, where John Sanders has relocated. John's a talented roaster and blender, and the combination of John and Bronwen are nearly unbeatable.

I'm not even a fan of Schomer's blends, but when I saw Bronwen at the controls I had a second drink even though it was my 4th in less than 90 minutes. On my way out of Seattle, I could have stopped off at that Vivace again (the next morning) so I enquired if Bronwen was going to be there. She wasn't going to be, so I gave it a pass on my way out of town.

I would question whether barista competitions made Bronwen better than she was already, but in any event, still, this process as currently structured does not do much to broaden the base, it just refines the top. And the pyramid has a huge base and a very small top.

ken

It's a trickle down theory Ken, but you have to be patient. Like you said, it's a huge base. It takes a lot to move a mountain...rather than bash the hikers who made it to the top you should invest more time nurturing the hikers on the bottom. I'm not trying to say you don't do your part, but it's counter productive to make negative claims about others when they clearly are passionate about advancing the craft. People like Nick work really hard. Not just for their own shops, but for the community, yourself included.

Mike,

Please enlighten me as to the negative claims I have made about "others when they clearly are passionate about advancing the craft." I started a thread that questioned the value of the barista competitions as currently structured and indicated that I thought they did little to elevate the overall level of espresso one is apt to find served at cafes in this country and around the world. In response to that, Nick called my comments "masturbatory" or something to that effect, and in other posts made other derisive remarks, followed by the old online ploy of making a laundry list of people he knows and respects from online sites whilst intentionally omitting my name. This is such a common posting device to trash someone online that to then say, "gosh, I didn't leave your name out, . . . . . on purpose" is laughable. If I hadn't seen it used online a zillion times before I'd withhold skepticism, but it is as common as dirt.

As to what Nick's contributions are and have been to the coffee community, I have no basis on which to question those or to comment upon them. I have read some of his articles and they have been fine, but they haven't been pivotal, at least to me. As to whether his running some well regarded cafes, that is certainly a plus, and this benefits his customers, although distance makes being his customer impossible for me at this time.

So, once again, I don't see how my initial post or subsequent posts in this thread have been aimed derisively at any individual, and with the exception of a couple of responses to what I saw as online attacks, I've tried to keep this discussion civil.

And I still don't think the barista competitions as currently structured are going to do very much to elevate coffee as we know it in this country or in the world. I do think it would be possible to structure them in a different way, that encouraged much broader participation and sharing of knowledge with some cafes that need to be brought up to speed. But what I see is online discussions about silly excesses in the rules and how competitors deal with that, and this sort of thing does nothing for coffee in general, it just continues the competition among the top places that one could arguably say are good enough already.

ken

Ken Fox wrote: My point was, and remains, however, that there is way too much focus on an artificial competition between a smallish clique of cafes, and way too little attention on expanding (greatly) the number of cafes that produce DRINKABLE shots. If I knew that I had a 30% chance of getting a decent espresso in a randomly chosen cafe, I'd take the chance on going in a lot more often than I do. Instead, the odds are considerably worse than that. If I knew that I could find a good espresso somewhere in San Diego when I go to visit family there, I'd drive 20 minutes on the freeway in search of it. Instead, a very likeable altie who took me to what he thought was among the best (or perhaps least worst) cafes in that metro area, was apologetic after the fact and indicated he'd tried almost everywhere there and they were all mediocre or much worse. Another altie and I, on a separate visit, went to another spoken of cafe in that city, and their drinks, although better, were barely drinkable.

I'll have to save this post; Ken sounding like a utopian socialist planner: "stop your competing, form the Barista Corps, go forth, and enlighten the ignorant." The top cafes and roasters spending their profits to shove quality down the throats of the vast number of their competitors who aren't interested may be a more efficient use of resources than them underwriting competition and the mild PR gains that accrue from it; but it isn't going to happen. I'm not a marketing maven, but pretty successful people are finding that supporting these competitions is good business, probably since it kills two birds with one stone -- it provides a bit of PR, and it's a way of rewarding and retaining ones best people.

Our argument is really whether these expenditures have a wider significance; not whether they should be made or not. You are sceptical that it has any effect on raising quality. I see it as part of a snowballing chain of causes and affects towards greater quality. It starts out mostly as an effect of the move to increasing quality; but I think that even in the most bottom line terms, it then becomes part of the chain reaction, passing along two messages: that there's big quality differences in commercial espresso, and that the top tier is prosperous and self-confident enough to finance these get togethers. Think of it as this industry segment's equivalent of dressing for success or putting on a big party to show that they are flush.

Ken Fox wrote:So, once again, I don't see how my intial post or subsequent posts in this thread have been aimed derisively at any individual, and with the exception of a couple of responses to what I saw as online attacks, I've tried to keep this discussion civil.

Home coffee-enthusiasts: Who gives a sh**?

Is that civil? Are you really that surprised that someone like me would feel "online attacking" you? Your apparent lack of self-awareness is informative.

On a more civil note, based on your later posts, I recommend that you should simply divert your attention and energy to supporting the Barista Guild of America, rather than the totally non-constructive deriding of the barista competitions.

Oh, I'm one of the BGA's Executive Council Directors. On behalf of the BGA, thanks for your support.

another_jim wrote:I'll have to save this post; Ken sounding like a utopian socialist planner: "stop your competing, form the Barista Corps, go forth, and enlighten the ignorant." The top cafes and roasters spending their profits to shove quality down the throats of the vast number of their competitors who aren't interested may be a more efficient use of resources than them underwriting competition and the mild PR gains that accrue from it; but it isn't going to happen. I'm not a marketing maven, but pretty successful people are finding that supporting these competitions is good business, probably since it kills two birds with one stone -- it provides a bit of PR, and it's a way of rewarding and retaining ones best people.

Our argument is really whether these expenditures have a wider significance; not whether they should be made or not. You are sceptical that it has any effect on raising quality. I see it as part of a snowballing chain of causes and affects towards greater quality. It starts out mostly as an effect of the move to increasing quality; but I think that even in the most bottom line terms, it then becomes part of the chain reaction, passing along two messages: that there's big quality differences in commercial espresso, and that the top tier is prosperous and self-confident enough to finance these get togethers. Think of it as this industry segment's equivalent of dressing for success or putting on a big party to show that they are flush.

Dear Jim,

I have to assume that our dear friend Dan Kehn decided to name his website "www.home-barista.com" for a reason. Might that reason have been that the website was intended for "home baristas," of which you and I are but two. He did not name the website "www.coffee-industry.com" or somesuch

Granted, there are good reasons why the top cafes would choose to compete with each other than to raise the quality of their competition in their surrounding areas. Granted, there are all sorts of peripheral benefits accruing to the coffee business community for leaving these barista competitions as currently structured. This does not mean that this current structure benefits us, the home baristas, for whom this website is named. This does not mean that the current structure benefits the baristas much either. They might well be better off with a competition structured to widen the base, since by widening the base there will be more potential employers for them, which can only improve their job situations and wages, which of course further strengthens the argument that the current structure benefits the industry more than any other group.

So, as much as we like and respect those coffee industry pros who befriend us, this may be an instance where our our interests are not exactly in line, and it is not necessarily right that we home baristas should buy into this current arrangement as being to our benefit. Maybe this is a situation where the enthusiast community can exert some pressure to good effect, as has been pointed out several times in this thread as having been a positive impact of consumers beginning a few years ago?

ken

Nick wrote:Home coffee-enthusiasts: Who gives a sh**?

Is that civil? Are you really that surprised that someone like me would feel "online attacking" you? Your apparent lack of self-awareness is informative.

On a more civil note, based on your later posts, I recommend that you should simply divert your attention and energy to supporting the Barista Guild of America, rather than the totally non-constructive deriding of the barista competitions.

Oh, I'm one of the BGA's Executive Council Directors. On behalf of the BGA, thanks for your support.

your posts require no response. I would simply suggest to the interested reader that they read all of your posts from the beginning of this thread, in order, and draw their own conclusions.

If it is your impression that posts such as yours in this thread elevate your art or your association, then a brief period spent in front of a mirror might be of benefit.

ken

Ken Fox wrote:And I still don't think the barista competitions as currently structured are going to do very much to elevate coffee as we know it in this country or in the world. I do think it would be possible to structure them in a different way, that encouraged much broader participation and sharing of knowledge with some cafes that need to be brought up to speed. ken

Does this not presuppose that the countless cafes serving substandard swill want to be elevated or care about quality espresso?. Are not many started by individuals who know and care nothing about quality coffee but who only want to cash in on what they see as a business opportunity? Questions are all too frequent from new or soon to be new coffee shop owners on forums like CG from people who even state they are coffee clueless yet own or are buying a supposed coffee business. While to me such people are business morons yet they are everywhere. I highly doubt any form of Barista competition revamping would bring them to the fold of quality coffee consciousness, not as long as profit from people's continued buying milkshakes with espresso like swill added. This does not in my mind negate the benefits of the Barista competitions for the shops with baristi who do wish learn more, emulate and excel at their craft. Yet the bottom dwellers will likely always be around regardless what the SCAA, BGA you or me do.

If you really have ideas you feel strongly about on ways to improve the Barista competition format to better carry the message of quality to those not involved in the competition get involved with the SCAA, the BGA and get yourself on the competition committee and work for change. It's easy to put something down, it's much harder to constructively and actively build something up.

Compass Coffee wrote:Does this not presuppose that the countless cafes serving substandard swill want to be elevated or care about quality espresso?. Are not many started by individuals who know and care nothing about quality coffee but who only want to cash in on what they see as a business opportunity? Questions are all too frequent from new or soon to be new coffee shop owners on forums like CG from people who even state they are coffee clueless yet own or are buying a supposed coffee business. While to me such people are business morons yet they are everywhere. I highly doubt any form of Barista competition revamping would bring them to the fold of quality coffee consciousness, not as long as profit from people's continued buying milkshakes with espresso like swill added. This does not in my mind negate the benefits of the Barista competitions for the shops with baristi who do wish learn more, emulate and excel at their craft. Yet the bottom dwellers will likely always be around regardless what the SCAA, BGA you or me do.

If you really have ideas you feel strongly about on ways to improve the Barista competition format to better carry the message of quality to those not involved in the competition get involved with the SCAA, the BGA and get yourself on the competition committee and work for change. It's easy to put something down, it's much harder to constructively and actively build something up.

I am certain that many of the bad cafes out there don't care about quality, but I'm equally sure that there are quite a few owners who would welcome improvement. I have obviously challenged some assumptions you hold near and dear and I'm sorry that has angered you as evidenced by this post and others you have made in this thread.

Nonetheless, it is irrefutable in my opinion that the direction these competitions are taking is not doing much to elevate the large mass of cafes whose quality could be improved with some relatively simple steps including basic barista training and use of better raw materials (e.g. the coffee). This thread was started, by me, as both a reaction to the recent plethora of posts about current barista competitions, and as an attempt to get people thinking about whether the process as currently existing does very much to benefit the great mass of cafes out there. I believe strongly that it does not. And, I also believe that I have next to no ability to change the process as currently structured, but hold out the hope that if it is discussed, perhaps others will see the issue the same way and if enough people do, the process will change.

ken

Ken Fox wrote:your posts require no response. I would simply suggest to the interested reader that they read all of your posts from the beginning of this thread, in order, and draw their own conclusions.

If it is your impression that posts such as yours in this thread elevate your art or your association, then a brief period spent in front of a mirror might be of benefit.

ken

No response: Who gives a sh**?

And Ken, I'm starting with the man in the mirror, I'm asking him to change his ways. And no message could have been any clearer: If you wanna make the world a better place, take a look at yourself, and then make a change... Na na na, na na na, na na, na nah.