Starbucks, More Than Coffee
tommaxwell.co
tommaxwell.co
Duh. This is what the franchising is all about - providing consistent branded experience across all outlets. And, yes, one of the prime benefits is that it provides a sense of familiarity regardless of location.
(edit) Another take on the title though - Starbucks main problem is that it does in fact try to be more than coffee. I really wish they weren't publicly traded and didn't have the pressure of growing revenues. I was a loyal customer for several years (2 visits per workday, $10 a pop), but then they started venturing in movie promotion (remember the "Spelling bee" bullshit printed all over the cups?), then they decided that Copehangen danishes were less preferable than overpriced ready-made paninis, after that - low-cal mystery-ingredient polymer-based sweets took over a quarter of the pastry space. Then, finally, they dropped Coffee from the name in preparation for being much more than coffee, i.e. booze. It went downhill so rapidly that it was painful to see. It used to be a nice place with an ugly logotype to visit, but now it's just the logotype.
I take mine with Peruvian potatoes, organic hemp seed oil and Mediterranean sea salt, to go, please.
Ray A Kroc, the guy responsible for McDonalds being McDonalds, believed that if you used clean restrooms to get people in the draw, they'd probably buy some soda or fries when they were in your store. It's hinted at in a quote from this other book [2]. And Wikipedia mentions that "[he] remained active in Des Plaines until the end of his life, frequently phoning the manager of the store across the street to remind him to clean his restaurant properly." [3]
I guess standards have slipped, though. I've been in McDonalds restrooms that would have Ray A Kroc roll over in his grave.
[1] http://www.amazon.ca/McDonalds-Behind-John-F-Love/dp/0553347...
[2] http://books.google.ca/books?id=Us2SKv7RWJEC&lpg=PA33...
But then one day wandering around an unfamiliar area in a city in China, desperately needing to go to the bathroom, I could only find bathrooms that were (a) locked; or (b) without toilet paper. Things were about to get really embarrassing, in a foreign city, far from where I was staying.
Then, I spotted a Starbucks. It had a clean, unlocked, well-stocked bathroom I could use even before a purchase. It was like an oasis in the desert.
Starbucks earned a *-ton of brand loyalty from me that day.
Pun intended?
OK kid, it wasn't that bad, believe it or not we survived pretty well. Travel used to be an adventure. Part of the adventure was being scared, at least a little bit, sometimes. Kind of an extreme sport.
I am old enough to have traveled quite a bit before and after cellphones and have noticed that the magic talisman of a smart phone makes travel dramatically more boring for me. I also spend a lot less time planning, I'll just figure it out onsite with my phone. I miss the daydreaming/planning phase.
Phone reliance while traveling has effects far beyond just using the GPS to figure out where you are.
I would theorize the lack of fear due to having phones results in the hard core travelers taking even crazier adventures, and a lot of non-hard core travelers doing more travel because the "scary" drops below their personal threshold for "scary".
The author's story was really about his magical phone.
Why leave your country when wherever you go, the first step is to look for it again?
There are local coffee shops in every country. In most cases they have a great atmosphere, most of them have wi-fi, most of them will let you charge your phone. All of them have… yes, coffee, often served in local ways — an opportunity to learn something about the culture. They will understand your order, no need to worry about your foreign language skills. Most countries have Starbucks-style coffee shops too these days, blended with a dash of local style.
If you go abroad and go to Starbucks, are you any different to those dreadful low-life tourists spending their holidays abroad in their respective country pubs, drinking their home beer like they never left for holidays in the first place?
Last time I was abroad and went to Starbucks dragged in by friends I felt like a loser. In part I guess, for having uninspiring friends. It could also be because I overpaid roughly by 250-300%, compared with prices in those lovely local cafes in the area.
I appreciate the warm tone of your article, clearly it's coming from a good place. But if you're in a coffee country like Italy and get your coffee at Starbucks, you're dead to me! ;)
Apologies for my patronising tone, it was meant to be somewhat warm too…
I also travel a lot and I love it. I travel in order to experience new cultures, people, food and drink. The last thing I want to see when I have traveled half way across the world is something that I see on my own freaking street.
The smallest and most remote places in the world seem to have widely available wireless internet access in lots of coffee shops, pubs, restaurants and bus terminals. I'd much rather support the local, little guys when travelling. It's usually cheaper, tastier and you meet many more amazing people inside. You're right in saying that Starbucks is consistent, but for me half the fun of travelling is playing menu roulette and seeing what you end up with.
I do understand the occasional need for a "taste of home", a haven of comfort if you will (In my case, hunting for a full English breakfast after days of eating fish and rice). I guess the line between "a recognizable, familiar, and reliable brand" and "overarching corporate crusher of culture" seems a little blurred to me.
if you are on leisure trip overseas you would not want to have the exact same experience that you have at home, you seek something novel. but when you are doing frequent business trips that you didn't want to go on first place and you don't have much time for anything other than work you don't want to do risky stuff. all your mind is over the thing you are supposed to do and you just want some "home comfort" to refresh yourself and get your mind ready for the task.
The first time I visited in Starbucks was when I visited Berkeley last spring. I have to say I care about my coffee a lot, I like to do my own cappuccinos and espresso shots and I love cafeterias where they have excellent coffee and good baristas. Starbucks was such a disappointment. If I pay so much for my coffee I expect to get the best out of it. Sadly I can do better myself, so I don't think I'll visit Starbucks any more.
If you're interested in Japanese coffee culture you should read Merry White's Coffee Life in Japan which shows how rich Japanese coffee culture is and how it has influenced the recent speciality coffee movement in the US including popular places like Blue Bottle.
I'm not saying the Kissatens generally in Japan aren't great, they are! I love them to bits. They serve good food are independently run and have a really nice casual atmosphere and friendly owners, and unique character quite often with children and or dogs running around...
But the coffee often isn't that great, they can be quite smokey (Starbucks is the only nonsmoking coffee shop I've found in Japan) and the vast majority don't have wifi. I can see why a "digital nomad" might be attracted to Starbucks you know what you'll get and you can hang around working without feeling bad.
Thanks for the recommendations, I'll try and check them out.
In any case, if you care at all about coffee why would you even consider Nescafe as an alternative, instead of good old brewed coffee?
Their blonde roast is the only roast they sell that comes from beans roasted optimally.
Other interesting things I learned:
- coffee beans are actually the pits of a cherry plant
- the higher the bean is grown from sea level, the better the quality
- good beans roasted properly create a coffee that is naturally sweet requiring no additional flavours or creams and tastes great just black
- Ily, the Italian coffee brand, sells one of the highest quality coffee grinds you can get from a supermarket
- coffee commodity prices are cyclical and producers will hold back or flood the market depending on the commodity price. As a result, you can time which beans will be fresh and which ones will be stale because they were held back during low price periods
Wrong: if you go in a bar and order an Illy espresso you'll pay more or less 1 euro. This price is the same as any other brand, even the cheapest ones. There seem to be no price difference in Italy based on brand (in bars). If you go to Venice St. Marco's square where a coffee at the table will cost you easily 8 euro, and you order it at the bar ans drink it standing (the standard way), it will still cost you 1 euro. It's like a political price, as could be beer in Prague or fried rice in Bangkok. Don't touch those prices or you'll get a revolution :)
Right: at the supermarket Illy is one of the most expensive brands. It's about 5,5 euro for 250 grams, compared to 3 euro for a good Arabica brand or even 2 euro for a cheap brand.
Mind: the bar and the supermarket Illy coffees are different, the bar version being much superior.
I like Illy (if you love it, you may want to go to Trieste and enjoy it there) but I still prefer to get it freshly grinded from somebody who toasts in place. I especially like one in Venice, where it goes from 12 to 25 per Kg, the good one costing as much as the Illy. Nothing compares to a freshly grinded good coffee.
similar to OP, I travel constantly for work. seeing the big Starbucks logo is a huge comfort. I think one aspect is down to the training. Starbucks employers know how to serve up their mediocre coffee, and that appreciate. I can't count the times that I've been in a random city, decided to try a local place for coffee, and then had to explain why I didn't want to put raw sugar in my iced coffee. There's a pretty key attribute involved in quickly dissolving sugar in a liquid. The "ice" is not one of those attributes. Even places like dunkin donuts fail to train their employees on the sugar dissolving mechanics. Starbucks allows me to order a coffee and then actually drink it, rather than chew it...
That's a valuable quality!
I travel heavily as well, and I can't think of any trip recently that did not include a Starbucks visit (FWIW, Panera is my other go-to). I know what I'm going to get (and not get) when I go there, and the last thing I need on the road is more random variables.
When I am at home, I stop in every day at a local small coffee shop that imports their own beans, roasts them, etc. The coffee is WAY better than anything at Starbucks. But independent places can be very hit or miss (as you note). I wouldn't go to an independent coffee shop on the road unless it came highly recommended by someone local.
I don't go to Starbucks because it's the best possible cup, I go there because it's the best possible consistent experience.
And for what it's worth, you won't catch me in a Starbucks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/31/business/starbucks-tailors...
As far as I can tell they are the only coffee shops that are completely non-smoking too, which might be important to some people.
In the UK, all cafes are non-smoking by law and many have wifi. I appreciate the US based nomad's desire for comfort (I once had to airmail Marmite and Typhoo tea to a friend working in Odessa) but would suggest trying some of the independents in the larger UK cities. Leaf in Liverpool and Yorks Bakery Cafe in Birmingham spring to mind.
There was an interesting blog post about Yelp a while back. He talked about how Starbucks and Yelp were trying to solve the same problem in different ways. Yelp's solution was to help you find something like your favourite coffee shops when away from home. Starbucks to build the same thing everywhere. :)
I'm not sure I buy it, but it's an interesting way of thinking about it.
Now if only they would give us real Chai Tea Lattes, life would be perfect.
Still, the answers might be simple. I recently stayed as an AirBnB guest in Berlin, and my host recounted receiving notice of a €1000 fine, due to some p2p TV episode downloading one of his previous guests may have done using his internet connection. He may have options to avoid responsibility, but the local presumptions seem against him... and just a few anecdotes like that could explain why now, in another part of Berlin, my laptop sees 20+ SSIDs, all locked down.
In Denmark I believe there's no bright-line rule either way, but there is no automatic liability. In practice there haven't been high-profile rulings going against open network operators (at least, not yet) to scare people off.
In Finland there is clear non-liability: http://boingboing.net/2012/05/14/finnish-court-open-wifi-own...
Bonus: many of them have free wifi without requiring those annoying t&cs....