MetaChat - Starbucks is Way More Than Just Lattes!

For good or for bad, we live in the era of the ascendency of the middlebrow.

posted by matildaben 31 May | 12:42

oh no not teh middlebrow

posted by keswick 31 May | 12:45

Starbucks isn't even legitamitely middle-brow. It's faux-brow, like the ones on Liz Taylors forehead. Then again to a lot of people, it's just a cup of coffee.

posted by jonmc 31 May | 12:46

I think that's always been the case, though, Mats. What scares me is now it feels like large corporations are assuming the right to tell us what we should tell ourselves.

Howard Schultz in this article comes off like he thinks what has happened with Sbux happened by accident, or by magic, like he's just as amazed as anyone else.

It makes me sick, and a little frightened.

posted by Lipstick Thespian 31 May | 12:46

im pretty sure the corporations still only have as much mindspace as you give them.

posted by keswick 31 May | 12:50

eh. it's just a cup of (expensive) coffee to me. I usually go to a deli for caffeine, but if I'm by a starbucks i go in there. And on a hot day I like their ~~milkshakes~~ frappucinos.

posted by gaspode 31 May | 12:51

Same here. Except for the Peppermint Mochas, I've never been a huge Sbux fan.

posted by jonmc 31 May | 12:53

I feel like I'm turning into a borderline crank, and I appreciate people going along with it and letting me have the space to work this out.

But what's bothering me further is that there's something definite I want to say about this, and I don't feel as though I can articulate it well enough.

posted by Lipstick Thespian 31 May | 13:04

What scares me is now it feels like large corporations are assuming the right to tell us what we should tell ourselves.

But this has pretty much always been true. That's kind of the point of marketing. It's just that any one brand reaches much farther now.

posted by mudpuppie 31 May | 13:08

LT, maybe it's the fact that Sbux which markets itself as a warm and fuzzy/creative class/hippie capitalist company, which makes the fact that they're just another voracious buncha rich guys more odious somehow? (I speak as someone who has worked for several such companies, and realizes that behind all the Wired/.com crap lurks the same same yuppie greed.

posted by jonmc 31 May | 13:09

So for reals I will choose to go to an independent over a starbucks/barnes and noble/etc.etc.etc. but for me it's more about being pro-independent company than anti-big corporation. If there's only (big corp) around, I'll go there.

Actually, barnes and noble kind of freaks me out with its teas, and godiva chocolates and all that crap. it's kinda starbucks-esque in that way.

posted by gaspode 31 May | 13:13

Maybe it's the fact that you were insanely in love with your Starbucks job for the first few months, and then became embittered for whatever reason?

posted by agropyron 31 May | 13:17

The nearest Starbucks is about half an hour away. The only reason I ever go there is because they have a drive-through and I don't have to take my sleeping wee one out of the car. This happens maybe 5 times a year.

We're finally getting an independent bookstore in my teeny little town, though!! I'm planning to spend a lot of time there. I haven't been this excited since we got a Japanese restaurant two towns over.

posted by jrossi4r 31 May | 13:20

My counter-example to this is that when I went to Paris, there were tiny shops solely dedicated to one item: pens, paper, what-have-you, and there were lots of them.

There was a sense of place there that doesn't exist much here anymore, as if the item being sold had an intrinsic quality to it that the person running the store was proud of and wanted to share with other people.

posted by Lipstick Thespian 31 May | 13:21

Oh boy, not this conversation again. Whatever.

posted by Diva Despina 31 May | 13:23

Agro - maybe, that's also a part of this. I was totally dazzled by the corporate culture there for a few weeks, had never seen anything like it, but then around the 5th week it was like everything crashed. I just saw the Real Deal there.

The dichotomy between what Starbucks tells you it is versus what it actually is like as a company is absolutely vertigo-inducing when seen from the inside.

posted by Lipstick Thespian 31 May | 13:24

DIVA! Don't knock it. It's a good one to have, and I won't bring it up again after this - promise.

Read the link and tell me what you think about it, doesn't have to be here. It's a good article.

p.s. Hi - good to see you :)

posted by Lipstick Thespian 31 May | 13:27

What scares me is now it feels like large corporations are assuming the right to tell us what we should tell ourselves.

Look, it's this simple: Starbucks exists in a free and open marketplace. They're selling something. You have the freedom to buy or not buy that product. This "corporations thinking for you" argument is completely spurious because it assumes that the consumer is to stupid to understand the nature of the marketplace.

Corporations have the right to offer us a product, or many products, as the case may be. We, as consumers have the right to decide if we like these products, or product portfolios. Nobody is forcing us to purchase things we don't want, and we have plenty of alternative products which we can substitute at an equavalent cost.

posted by pieisexactlythree 31 May | 13:33

Pi - your idea of a "free and open" marketplace is just as spurious as saying consumers can't think for themselves.

Nothing is that simple, and don't patronize me.

posted by Lipstick Thespian 31 May | 13:42

"Our customers have given us permission to extend the experience."

Anytime you hear stuff like this, you should reach for the salt shaker, 'cause you're going to need more than a grain of the stuff for what follows.

This article is just a blow job of a puff piece of a sorry excuse for a newspaper article. There's no good reason to think that Starbucks will be any more successful in its daliances outside fast food (yes, I said FAST FOOD!) than, say, Coca-Cola was in movie production.

posted by deadcowdan 31 May | 13:45

Nothing is that simple, and don't patronize me.
Overreacting much? It was not my intent to patronise anyone. Does anyone force you consume one product exclusively of any other? How exactly is the us market for coffee and related products anyting other than free and open? Last I checked, there are numerous competing coffee businesses selling equivalent products at equivalent prices. Is this not the definition of an open marketplace?

posted by pieisexactlythree 31 May | 13:54

Exactly. WTF is "our customers HAVE GIVEN US PERMISSION to extend the experience" mean?

It's that whole passive-voice thing - "we wouldn't have made these decisions if you dear people hadn't bestowed the right to do so on us, and we thank you for it."

posted by Lipstick Thespian 31 May | 13:55

As if anybody needs permission to expand their business from one that sells "widget A" to a buisness that also sells "widget B" and "widget C" I agree that this was a very poor choice of words on that man's part.

The concept of 'one stop shopping' has always been one which appeals to people with a high ratio of disposable income to spare time. There are more of those people now than ever before.

posted by pieisexactlythree 31 May | 14:01

I really just can't imagine getting this worked up about this issue. If you want to become a moral crusader, there are plenty of other issues that are in dire need of energetic people loudly voicing opinions on them. Why don't you channel your outrage into the fight for our eroding civil liberties? Or how about protesting the use of torture?

Your fervor on this subject really does smack of a personal grudge.

posted by agropyron 31 May | 14:02

Starbucks doesn't sell coffee. Like any other chain or big box it sells consistency. This is more of a social problem than an economic one.

posted by sciurus 31 May | 14:15

Perhaps LT, your objection is on the grounds that corporate packaging of the arts is personally insulting to you as a career artist. It is understandable that one would feel slighted in those circumstances, as I no doubt would if someone attempted to package and market the services that I provide professionally as an accessory to an ostensibly unrelated item. Unfortunately, whether you like it or not, may consumers simply view the arts as wallpaper, something to add texture to other non-related activities, and are thus willing to receive them as a package from a "trusted source." The real object of your ire, Ayre, would thus be the undiscerning masses, who would rather buy a book that Oprah recommended than pick up the New Yorker, TLS or the NYT Review in order to investigate and compare the various works on their intrinsic merits before making an informed decision on which one to purchase and read.

posted by pieisexactlythree 31 May | 14:17

Ah, the NYT Review sucks; it's the NYRB the unwashed masses should be reading.

posted by Hugh Janus 31 May | 14:24

They might need Starbucks more than it needs them. Its stock is up about 5,775% since it went public in 1992. It's had 172 straight months of same-store sales growth.

This kind of writing really grates me. SBUX has performed extremely well, but 5,775% is an odd way of putting it. It's an absurdly large number without any context. It would be better if they compared against something like the S&P 500 (up 400% over that timeframe). And even better if they quoted annualized rates of return (32% for SBUX, versus 10% for the S&P).

And the stats, in my mind, work against the leading sentence of the paragraph. The investing public has high expectations of SBUX and the company is struggling to find new ways to grow. The public will always be able to get mediocre coffee, but SBUX execs may not always have those glamorous jobs.

posted by mullacc 31 May | 14:41

Ayer, perhaps you would enjoy the work of Thomas Frank?

posted by matildaben 31 May | 14:46

Who is Ayer?

posted by mullacc 31 May | 15:11

LT frequently refers to his off-line persona as "Ayer Vook"

posted by pieisexactlythree 31 May | 15:16

i now think of him as Meat Cake.

posted by ethylene 31 May | 15:23

Thanks, thanks for that Ethylene. *feels like wallpaper himself now*

Thanks to all of you also for entertaining my tangents. You all make valid points. I will try from now on to keep my Ayer Ire to a minimum on the front page.

Who is Thomas Frank? (turns to Google)

posted by Lipstick Thespian 31 May | 15:34

All I know is that I wish I had bought SBUX stock back in 1992.

posted by deborah 31 May | 15:43

Forget Starbucks- on a hot summer day, there is NOTHING as good as Dunkin' Donuts Lemonade Coolatta. Just don't watch them make it- they pour all the ingredients straight from a box into your cup, right in front of you. Kinda gross, somehow.

posted by ThePinkSuperhero 31 May | 15:47

My favorite coffee-like drink is the Diary Queen MooLatte. I especially enjoy it when contemplating race relations in the US.

posted by mullacc 31 May | 16:04

Interview with Thomas Frank
The Baffler Magazine
Books by Thomas Frank

posted by matildaben 31 May | 16:14

An interesting aside from an article in the New York Times food section about sending care packages to soldiers in Iraq:

In a latte-swilling nation, it stands to reason that soldiers would prefer something better than the Civil War-era coffee paste or the packets of freeze-dried coffee that have been standard issue since World War II. This month, Crystal White, who works at a Starbucks in Waterville, Me., organized a shipment of 106 pounds of coffee beans and a small grinder to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.

Ms. White got the idea after she watched a holiday television special broadcast from the base and heard a soldier talk about all the coffee they drank. "I wanted them to have something they're used to, something from back home," said Ms. White, whose siblings have served in the military. "I wanted them to know that there's something they are fighting for."

Yep. You got it. We went to war to make the world safe for Starbucks.

posted by mudpuppie 31 May | 16:24

[A couple of paragraphs down in the same article, the reporter says: "Other new field rations include an expanded line of vegetarian dishes, including lasagna and chicken pesto pasta."

Although maybe this belongs in the Shoddy Reportage thread.]

posted by mudpuppie 31 May | 16:26

heh. I just washed down 40mg of Prozac with a swig of Starbucks hazlenut iced late.

posted by pieisexactlythree 31 May | 16:30

"I wanted them to know that there's something they are fighting for."

I love the smell of Starbucks in the morning

posted by dodgygeezer 31 May | 16:35

"Once more thru the drivethru, dear friends!"

*is pelted with rocks and garbage and spent Frappucino bottles*

posted by Lipstick Thespian 31 May | 16:46

I don't even like Starbuck's coffee, even in the bland environs of Western Michigan I can name ten coffee houses in our town that are infinitely better without even thinking hard.

posted by King of Prontopia 31 May | 20:32

It has 87 urban locations co-owned by Earvin "Magic" Johnson.

What the hell does that have to do with "social responsibility"? It's sandwiched between talking about their fair trade coffee (which, apparently, only represents about 1% of their total coffee purchases) and an apparently amazing coffee cup made with a whopping 10% recycled material, but the article is from USA Today, so I guess I can't be surprised that it's a blow job pretending to be a press release pretending to be journalism.

Their history of union busting activity alone makes damn sure that I'll never buy anything from Starbucks.

posted by cmonkey 31 May | 22:03

31 May 2006