mitch236 wrote:
Whether you like them or not, you have to credit them with expanding American's knowlege of espresso which before SB was basically non-existent.

Actually, I would not credit them with that. They don't really make or sell "espresso," at least not espresso as I understand it. I understand "espresso" in both the European/Italian and the "3rd wave/N. American" versions, which are very different drinks. Neither of those resemble what Starbucks sells or has popularized in their expansion.

Starbucks beans are always over-roasted in comparison to most others, and their "espresso drinks" come out of a superautomatic, which produces a thin, watery, gruel. The beans used are very stale, although that in and of itself is no longer unique. In its raw form, a S$ "espresso" is pretty much undrinkable. Fortunately for their customers, well over 95% of their "espresso" beverages are huge milk drinks, in which the predominant flavors are milk and other flavorings, not coffee, which in their case is a plus.

Perhaps they have taught American people something, but it certainly is not about "espresso" under either of its real definitions.

ken

Ken, I pulled this definition of espresso from Sweet Maria's website:

An espresso is a small, concentrated coffee beverage, 2.5 ounces or less for a double epsresso, served in a demitasse cup. It has both a liquid and a foam element (crema). It is made on a specialized machine that forces hot water through finely ground coffee that has been compacted (tamped), the force of the water being spent in the coffee cake. It takes 20-30 seconds to percolate the water through the coffee cake (or "puck") which is held in a portafilter "coffee handle". It is judged by its appearance, aroma, mouthfeel (body), flavor and aftertaste.

I think SB's espresso would qualify based on this alone (except for the demitasse cup which they used to use when I first went to SB). Of course you could argue the pf part, but that is semantics. Also, when SB first started, they were using LM Linea's which would qualify for the pf part.

mitch236 wrote:When I view Starbucks, I see a company that did what was needed for successful expansion. When they first opened, they used equipment similar to what the high end HB'er is using now (Linea's but I'm not sure which grinder). With that setup, quality was too dependent on barista technique. It seems they took a page out of McDonald's handbook. IOW, if you give the public acceptable but consistent quality (arguably), they will come. That's when SB switched to superautos to provide spro. That way, the only training needed was what to put in each drink, sort of like a bartender. Overall quality suffered but consistency was improved greatly.

Whether you like them or not, you have to credit them with expanding American's knowlege of espresso which before SB was basically non-existent.

Before Schultz was hired they sold whole bean coffee out of six shops in Seattle. Schultz wanted to start serving coffee but ownership said no. What if they had said yes? From day one Schultz wanted to build a mega-model. His most amazing feat imo was raising the start-up capital. What if he had been happy just ruling Seattle's coffee scene. In essence they could have skipped the "2nd wave" all together. He may not have ended up a billionaire and friends with Kenny G, but it very well could have been plenty lucrative to sell mail order coffee and own ten coffee shops / retail locations.

I think most of us who obviously don't represent the majority or stock holders take more issue with the super-autos then anything else (stale beans too). The book has a self-righteous tone about offering health care to the part-timers, but what about investing in training and solving the fresh bean dilemma and not compromising your vision. He wanted to bring the Italian coffee shop experience to the U.S. - but the Italian barista understands the 4 M's and would never serve what Starbucks serves.

I also think they built a reputation for quality coffee before they grew and compromised all their standards. Most Americans are sheep and kept buying it because they don't know the difference in the quality.

They certainly capitalize in being ubiquitous - a lot of people buy their coffee in airports, book stores, etc. because they have no other option and really want (or need) a coffee.

MattJ wrote:I wondered about that, but he mentions that the stock has split twice in their history, both before it was $33 in '96. I don't see how it could have tripled this year as it's low was $21 and it's high is about what it is today. I'll take your word for it as I'm a n00b at the stock market. I did try and do a little research because I know they've been closing stores and was curious if it has hurt their stock.

Sorry, it is about a year and a half. It was selling for about $9 in 2009. As for the splits, it had split two times prior to 1996 (when you said the book was discussing), but has split three times since then. I think I recall seeing something where if you had purchased early in the life of the company, every dollar invested would be worth about $1,300.

Many times, I falsely assume most people prefer specialty coffee.

At my work, freely at disposal, there is alway home roast, several 3rd wave roaster product, bulk coffee from Costco or Trader Joe's, Oscar, two different burr grinders set up for drip and espresso. Guess which coffee gets drunk most? The bulk coffee! Most co-workers prefer scalded milk when I make them milk based drinks, with lots of sugar and flavored hydrogenated creamer, instead of the organic milk in the refrigerator.

I can see why SBUX is successful.

Guess which coffee gets drunk most? The bulk coffee! Most co-workers prefer scalded milk when I make them milk based drinks, with lots of sugar and flavored hydrogenated creamer, instead of the organic milk in the refrigerator.

That lack of critical concentration seems to be the case with just about everything that really interests me - including music and art. That is why I like the obsessive, even if sometimes prickly, fanatics.

Howard Not Schultz

Ya can't trust the guy. I was a fan of the Torrefazione coffees , and was getting them at a local hippy grocery fairly regularly, and within days of roasting. And then Starbucks bought them. While Howard was at the corporate meeting in Tucson, I asked him what his plans for Torrefazione were. He said, emphatically, that he would change nothing, that they were, for all intents and purposes autonomous, but just now owned by Starbucks. That was weeks before the local hippy grocery was out-profited by their new online-only sales.
And then I got a tour that sat at the Fifth Ave in Seattle for three weeks. I rode my bike to the Torrefazione cafe. Windows covered with butcher paper, announcing the arrival of a new business. Pioneer Square location, same thing. I rode to a third location, also covered with butcher paper, and posting an announcement for a new business.
Ya just can't trust a slick businessman from Noo Yawk City.
Oh, and I have it from a reliable source that one of the first things that Howard did when he was re-instated as CEO was to get himself one of the old LaMarzoccos back. And it cost him quite a bit more than what he liquidated it for when he sold it out at bulk to replace it with Super Auto Swillmakers.

Personally, I think the key to Starbucks's commercial success was the fact that they figured out how to differentiate a commodity that had been undifferentiated for most Americans. Coffee was just coffee - that awful stuff made by Folgers and sold from a big aluminum urn. Starbucks roasted a much darker roast than most Americans had ever had, and it had a genuinely different flavor. Was it good? Maybe. But the main thing is that it was different and could be sold as a premium product with a lot of bs about all other coffees being under-roasted (remember the little bean displays in Starbucks?).

American coffee - urn type - was and is truly awful. There were places to get a decent coffee (including an OK espresso) in America in the 1970's and more by the 1980's, but most people were oblivious to anything but the awful stuff from percolators and urns. It would have been hard to convince people that a decent cup of coffee was worth trying if it had not looked, smelled and seemed noticeably different.

Plus all the other features of Starbucks people always cite - providing a place to sit and talk over coffee, etc. Most ordinary diners expected people to order food or move on after a little while.

The rest is a familiar history: from LaMarzocco and "trained baristas" to superautos and paper cups. And coffee with 9 month pull dates. Illy is now part of coca cola, and Sharfenberger chocolate might as well be Hershey. There is no novelty in the process. Joseph Schumpeter observed almost 100 years ago that people often misunderstand capitalism. They think it should bring the same goods to the masses that previously were enjoyed only by the rich. Instead, it creates new streams of cheap goods for the mass of the population.

Howard Schultz's pretenses not withstanding, the appropriate medium of comparison for Starbucks probably is the aluminum industrial coffee urn of Folgers, not espresso from an artisan shop or the coffee most of us pull at home.

mitch236 wrote:Ken, I pulled this definition of espresso from Sweet Maria's website:

(quote omitted by home-barista.com software)

I think SB's espresso would qualify based on this alone (except for the demitasse cup which they used to use when I first went to SB). Of course you could argue the pf part, but that is semantics. Also, when SB first started, they were using LM Linea's which would qualify for the pf part.

Espresso is a hard drink to define, and not something I would necessarily define in the way that SM's has apparently defined it. If you take the "real thing," what they came up with in Italy and defined as "espresso" at its birth, then what Starbucks is peddling does not resemble it. Likewise, if you take what high end cafes in N. America and elsewhere define as "espresso," Starbucks does not sell that either. If instead you take some dry definition off a website or online dictionary, basically any "strong coffee" would fit that description, but it would not meet my definition of espresso, nor would it meet the definition of most coffee-interested people that I know.

ken