Starbucks (and Sameness)

I think it's a bit presumptive to write off the appeal of locally-owned businesses. Granted, it's easy and attractive to do since some people are so ridiculous about it. (Here in Austin, a neighborhood sued to try to stop a Walmart from coming in. They lost, but the process got delayed long enough for the recession to hit, so now an uglier, less-pedestrian friendly Walmart will be built than what was proposed. Progress.)

There is something palpably different when you're buying something directly from the owner of a business, or at least when the owner isn't too far removed for you to interact with them every once in a while. There's a Mediterranean restaurant I frequent that's run by three generations of a family, and something just feels different when I go there beyond just the quality of the food, which is amazing on its own. Perhaps they're just good at being friendly. I think it's more of a side-effect of properly aligned incentives. The better of an experience they create, the more money they make, and with a stronger, more positive correlation than a waiter has with tips.

Humans are social creatures. There might appear to be an equivalence between transactions with Starbucks and your local independent coffee shop, but there's more going on than just a transaction. It's an experience.

(Then there's the whole argument for keeping money circulating within your local economy, but that seems like it'd have the same problems as protectionism if it became a popular movement.)

If you want a cup of approximately coffee-shaped liquid in the morning, Starbucks is great because it's the same coffee anywhere. It's not inspiring, but it's nearly always edible. For a very large number of people who drink coffee, this is the goal and starbucks delivers, anywhere, anytime.

If you want a coffee shop experience, with young bohemian college students or starving artists or something, starbucks tends not to deliver. Being standardized lends an air of inauthenticity, and depending on what you're looking for it's a bit too busy what with everyone ordering coffee all the time so they can get through the day. There's usually some people on a laptop, and there are a few that have managed to become havens to the right type of people, but it's less "coffee shop" and more "a shop that sells coffee."

So basically, starbucks is servicing a niche market. Fortunately for them, it's a large niche, and they've self-selected for high-functioning addicts so the business model is sustainable.

At one point, Starbucks was a local coffee shop. One of the reasons it was successful was because it made its drinks unique-- it puts a tiny amount of caramel into Mochas, which give them a distinct taste that people feel they can't find anywhere else.

The coffee is only just decent, but 99% of people don't know or care about that. Most people wouldn't know what good coffee tastes like. They assume -- and, through the power of placebo, taste -- the coffee is bad because of the undertones about Starbucks in society.

I don't think this is about coffee or brands directly. This is about perception. The perception of localness is what Starbucks was hypothesizing to be powerful. They either failed in their experiment (likely by mentioning that it was inspired by Starbucks) or discovered their hypothesis was incorrect.

I haven't seen any real data. I think that Starbucks has the data, and knows to a tenth of a percent how many people would prefer an independent shop, all other factors being equal.

It also seems that the appeal of the independent shop varies by location. Certain demographics will value authenticity, local ownership and funkiness.

We should beware the temptation to generalize from our own preferences, or from those of our friends.

From personal observation, when a Starbucks is near an indie shop, they are usually doing about the same volume of transactions. It may be 65/35 or 35/65, but I haven't seen 90/10.

Has anyone?

I go to starbucks because they usually have a clean restroom.

I find it interesting that Starbucks would want to throw away their branding and open up coffee shops under a generic name.

That said, this is a negative and contentless rant. Blue jeans are very practical in all seasons. It's not fair to compare a fashion trend to a franchise rebranding.

The comedy bit Matt mentions is by Lewis Black talking about the street in Houston with two Starbucks across from each other.

It now has three (sort of):

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2009_479001...