The central challenge to running any sort of mass food chain is to keep your product as consistent as possible. People expect the Starbucks drink they order when they get off the plane in Miami to taste exactly the same as they one they order back home in Boise.
In coffee, the darker the roast the more the individual characteristics of the beans are replaced by the flavors of the roast itself. Starbucks, and most mass coffee chains, char their roasts because it's a way to homogenize away the variance in terroir that comes from beans sourced across a wide range of farms and batches.
Edit: The analysis itself starts on the third page, after comparing and contrasting two travel journals from centuries apart.
I’m not sure what Paris would look like with a negligible tourist population, but it would be quite different. Who maintains the historical buildings? Le Mėtro? Straight tax dollars alone won’t cover it without the tourist subsidies.
But it is a functioning capital city, most of what goes on there isn’t related to tourism.
Museums sure were empty last year when I was there.
Of course, your criticism ignores that culture is more than restaurants and much more than consumerism. No matter what stores are open along the Champs-Elysees, that it connects the Arc de Triomphe and Tuileries Garden is worth more culturally than what store fronts exist along the way. That is certainly the unique bit, and probably what draws tourists.
Well, the Sephora was a draw for my sister :)