History repeats itself

On Thursday, Starbucks announced a new line of Starbucks Reserve-only stores, featuring manual espresso machines, that will be operating as early as next year. In an attempt to bring more authenticity and personalization to Reserve stores, customers will be able to choose how they want their small-batch coffees brewed. Starbucks goes (even more) upscale with Reserve-only line of coffeehouses

25 years ago I watched with fascination... a barista pulling manual shots on a three group La Marzocco at the local Starbucks. Not willing to pay the outrageous price of $1.95 for a latte ... and thinking "how hard can this be?"... I purchased my first of many espresso machines. Several years later I was surprised to learn Starbucks had "upgraded" all their stores to super automatics. And now ... for the discerning coffee drinker... they are going back to manuals for those who want more authenticity and personalization.

Anyway... I figure there are now countless numbers of new Starbucks coffee drinkers who weren't drinking coffee in 1991 and will see the manual process for the first time and will "ooh and ahh" at the process as well as mentally justify the extra cost. (Hmmm... I wonder if their baristas will do any better at spelling the customer names on the cups.)

Don Task

Hah. Maybe they'll starting buying back all those Lineas and Super Jollys they dumped 15 years ago.

I didn't see anything there that indicated an effort to actually do a better job sourcing and roasting their beans. As long as they roast every bean until it looks like a Kingsford briquette, I can't imagine all the manual machines and high concept cafes are going to make much difference to the quality of their coffee. But maybe it shows that they're feeling some pressure from high end shops like Stumptown, Intelligentsia and Blue Bottle, who have been making a lot of inroads in the market lately.

Unless they start roasting good coffee and not scorching it, ( and using it within 2 weeks or so)... Who cares.

I had a "pour over " at one of their shops out of curiosity, it was just as crappy as all the rest of their coffees. OH and it took a lot longer to get.

Point of fact however is they do roast good coffee. Very good coffee. They just roast it into oblivion beyond most of our collective tastes. But that doesn't change the fact that they buy good quality to start with.

TomC wrote:Point of fact however is they do roast good coffee. Very good coffee. They just roast it into oblivion beyond most of our collective tastes. But that doesn't change the fact that they buy good quality to start with.

Interesting. How do they manage to procure truly good coffee in such mass quantities. What a crying shame! Maybe we can ask them to stop and save the good stuff for real coffee roasters...

It's amazing, when you learn about truly good coffee everything about Starbucks is completely ironic. It's like pure consumerism drives their entire existence.

There would likely not be very many "real coffee roasters" as we know them today, if it were not for Starbucks.

And they've probably invested more into the how's and why's and where's in which they acquire their coffee than anyone else short of Nestle.

But to your last point, subjectively, I sorta agree. But then again, there's many, many more consumers who choose to go to McDonalds for their burgers than there are folks hitting up In N Out Burger or Five Guys. Starbucks wouldn't be doing what they're doing if they weren't phenomenally successful at giving their customer base what they want. And for the most part, that's swirly caramel sauce and whipped cream, ice cubes and milk.

I applaud their efforts at their Reserve stores. It may loose money for them, but it's good PR.

I'm sure those lever machines will make the most amazing Caramel Frappe Whips!

TomC wrote:There would likely not be very many "real coffee roasters" as we know them today, if it were not for Starbucks.

And they've probably invested more into the how's and why's and where's in which they acquire their coffee than anyone else short of Nestle.

But to your last point, subjectively, I sorta agree. But then again, there's many, many more consumers who choose to go to McDonalds for their burgers than there are folks hitting up In N Out Burger or Five Guys. Starbucks wouldn't be doing what they're doing if they weren't phenomenally successful at giving their customer base what they want. And for the most part, that's swirly caramel sauce and whipped cream, ice cubes and milk.

I applaud their efforts at their Reserve stores. It may loose money for them, but it's good PR.

The thing about the McDonald's reference tho is that is that they are the low cost provider unlike five guys, etc. I don't see that as Starbucks' market strategy. Although I'll take a "sorta agree" from you Tom. I get the sense you like to play Devils advocate a bit based on other posts I've seen.

Imagine if they used all those resources to roast and brew good coffee! Other small batch roasters would/could be in trouble.

RyanJE wrote: Imagine if they used all those resources to roast and brew good coffee! Other small batch roasters would/could be in trouble.

Starbucks very likely wouldn't bother. It's too small a pond for them to care. What's "good" to some, is snobby, and inconvenient or too bright to many many others. Like I said, they've been pretty successful thus far.

Imagine the inventory waste if they admitted coffee is only good for a couple weeks!