They are at least apparently not using superautos.

sweaner wrote:They are at least apparently not using superautos.

How is that apparent?
I've been wondering what Howie has up his sleeve, and rumours of there being Starbuckses that are returning to the days of local roasting and hand-pulled shots by educated baristi have been flying on the rumour mill, but so far, no solid confirmation. If you've got a source, bring it on, brother!
I dunno, I'm not sure that I'd not reward a place that trains baristi, takes care of their beans, grind, and pulls, and serves me a great doppio or cappuccino. I'm not sure that showing Howie that that is a better course is a bad thing.
I'm pretty sure that he owes the folk at Vivace, Victrola, Stumptown, Metropolitan, (and perhaps Lardo's and Monorail, too) a royalty if he pulls it off.
Howard Schultz is a sneaky, deceitful lil money grubbing coffee whore. I wouldn't let his folk in my place. Having competitors come into your shop and take notes is almost theft, if it isn't, and I'd refuse service to any of 'em.

It was written in this piece:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... cks16.html

sweaner wrote:It was written in this piece:

Thanks! I love the idea of a Victrola/Stealthbucks barista smackdown. I might even fly out to the RustBowl for that one!

Psyd wrote:Thanks! I love the idea of a Victrola/Stealthbucks barista smackdown. I might even fly out to the RustBowl for that one!

Starbuck's flack wrote:Pfeiffer didn't flinch at the idea. "We should set that up," he said.

They'd set it up by recruiting Stephen Morrissey. Imagine the pile of money they'd drop if they ever decided a Starbucks employee had to be the world's best barista.

But I doubt it they'll ever do it; I think Starbucks is too far gone now. Dying corporations don't see tunnels of lights; instead they enter a corporate cloud-cuckoo land from which they issue soothing noises to nervous stockholders.

So they've spent millions doing very peculiar research. They've spied on probably dozens of 3rd wave cafes, put together dossiers, hired experts, and rolled out the marketing brigade. To what effect? For a single cafe not named Starbucks; and a lot of claptrap on how they can "rebrand" themselves, how they can create "neighborhood" cafes with "community feeling," and how they can promote "a reimagining of past locales." Does this strike you as aimed at customers or at nervous stockholders? Think about it, all that spying, and never once did they try a shot of espresso

The only record they'll set with 16th Street Cafe is "world's most expensive sink shot."

another_jim wrote: But I doubt it they'll ever do it; I think Starbucks is too far gone now. Dying corporations don't see tunnels of lights; instead they enter a corporate cloud-cuckoo land from which they issue soothing noises to nervous stockholders.

Well, it's 15th Ave, but who's counting! ; >
I think that Andrew Hetzel best describes how and why their coffee isn't that good here.

another_jim wrote: . . .and a lot of claptrap on how they can "rebrand"

I agree. On the other hand, let's play, "What Would You do if you were Starbucks?" (no fair saying, "serve good coffee." That's cheating) I'll start- - - -

As a matter of pride and (some time down the line) business viability, I'm irritated by the bad rap my company is getting. A great many Starbucks loyalists (that amounts to many millions) are now slightly apologetic about their patronage. Even though they like the confections, recognize that the coffee is mostly fresh, appreciate that the stores are laid out well for fast service, and find them handy and familiar, the word is out that there is better coffee to be had. It could be a generational creep: tastes change, cool develops, and more people don't want to be caught saying that Starbucks is "The Cadillac of Coffee."

So, as CEO (or Whatever-O), I actually appreciate good coffee, and I know the difference between a god-like shot and the thin burnt stuff my stores sell. But the brand is strong, the franchise profitable. No way can I depart from the signature Starbucks taste: first, lots of people won't like it; second, they and I would be admitting that they were wrong all these years; third, there are some technical difficulties such as baristas, training, equipment, costs, etc.

What I decide is to insinuate a boutique presence into the market. It's Not-Starbucks but everyone knows it is. Insurance against a Starbucks-favorability tipping point when (to mix the metaphor) the emperor's clothes droop to his ankles and millions scream from their windows, "I'm not going to take it anymore." Things like this can happen to the best and biggest (see, for example, Sears, General Motors, the US economy.)

At this crash-point my company still has lots of value. But outside supermarkets and airlines, it's not the brand anymore; it's the real estate. Location, location, location. Happily, I have a different and upgraded brand that I can start moving in. And, I can be cool again (as well as rich.)

Martin wrote: ... A great many Starbucks loyalists (that amounts to many millions) are now slightly apologetic about their patronage ... the word is out that there is better coffee to be had. It could be a generational creep: tastes change, cool develops, and more people don't want to be caught saying that Starbucks is "The Cadillac of Coffee."

I think that's a terrific analogy, Cadillac is a lot like Starbucks -- that odd, maybe self-contradictory, combo of mass market and high end.

This requires a really clever balancing act that may be generational, with no "rebranding" allowed. Who now takes Cadillac seriously? They always seem a decade behind the real luxury market

If Starbucks would hire one of the major 3rd wave figures as the CEO of a high end cafe division and do this cafe experiment as something completely autonomous, it might work. But that would require that Starbucks admits that it is the seller of fast food coffee-beverages, rather than real espresso. And that means, it has to stop being a Cadillac.

This venture brings out the inherent contradiction in Starbucks -- in the long run, can a fast food style operation pretend to be serving high end coffee to discriminating consumers? I'm guessing no way, that they are in a death spiral unless they figure out a way to resolve this.