Slashdot Mirror
Starbucks Responds In Kind To Oxfam YouTube Video
Kligmond writes "Last week, Starbucks placed a video on YouTube responding to a video posted by the Oxfam Charity. The Oxfam video was launched in conjunction with 'Starbucks Day of Action,' held December 16th, when activists visited Starbucks locations across the world in protest of the coffee retailer's alleged mistreatment of Ethiopian farmers. The Starbucks video calmly addresses the Oxfam allegations, citing an impasse over Ethiopian trademark legalities. Starbucks claims the refusal to sign a trademark agreement with Ethiopia is a stumbling block they hope to resolve on behalf of the farmers. The coffee chain's representative goes on to refute the contention that Starbucks refuses to pay a fair price for its coffee reserves and, in fact, routinely pays well above commodity price, and above fair trade price. Unlike many recent ineffectual corporate reactions to social journalism and networking eruptions, Starbucks' response is unique in that the corporation managed Oxfam's unconventional assault in a very unconventional way, via YouTube. Regardless of the outcome of this particular incident, the move on Starbucks' part comes off as unmistakably in touch with today's communication modes and methods."
I suddenly want a coffee.
...a response...
But why ? Does she crave for good coffee on the Battlestar ? Didn't the 12 colonies invest in fair trade coffee ? Why is she all of a sudden so sensitive about why Oxfam posted a youtube video anyway ?
What new plot twist of BG do I not understand ?
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
Next time do a little research Oxfam. Starbucks is one of the most socially responsible companies out there. They are pretty much why their is such a thing as "fair trade" coffee.
And to all the people that say *bucks pushes out the mom and pops: when was the last time they offered carreers or health insurance?
Then buy it from a Fair Trade company. Better for the money go to the people making the coffee than middlemen.
. shtml
http://www.ifat.org/furtherreading/libraryftgoods
It's nice to see a company address accusations directly, without resorting to lawsuits or just more propaganda. These points were well refuted in the vid, though I would personally like to see a bit more documentation provided to show that they're not just pulling things out of their collective asses.
I wish other companies would follow this lead - transparent, straight-forward, no-BS rebuttals of claims against them. Apple, where's your rebuttal against Greenpeace?
It's great to see another instance of YouTube being used for constructive purposes. Time and time again, videos like these remind me how the internet is a necessary cornerstone for communication in today's world.
Beacuse this would be a new use of the technology, rather than "hippies in Seattle march with signs, corporation issues press release denying charges"?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
We've already seen traditional advertising via the tubes. I guess all that's left is for the next presidential candidates to launch attacks/defenses on there.
Here is the mission statement that they live their lives by:
Establish Starbucks as the premier purveyor of the finest coffee in the world while maintaining our uncompromising principles as we grow. The following six guiding principles will help us measure the appropriateness of our decisions:
* Provide a great work environment and treat each other with respect and dignity.
* Embrace diversity as an essential component in the way we do business.
* Apply the highest standards of excellence to the purchasing, roasting and fresh delivery of our coffee.
* Develop enthusiastically satisfied customers all of the time.
* Contribute positively to our communities and our environment.
* Recognize that profitability is essential to our future success.
You constantly struggle for self improvement - and it shows.
Hooray for bad Engrish on fortune cookies
"Regardless of the outcome of this particular incident, the move on Starbucks' part comes off as unmistakably in touch with today's communication modes and methods."
The final comment of the summary does have the ring of truth(or shall I say, truthiness?).
But then I stop to think...c'mon, this is Youtube. How hard is it to post something on Youtube, a free service? What's more interesting is that this move is a suprise rather than the suprise itself.
The nerdy navigators of old drank it and pretty much everyone else since then.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
There is a good article about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbucks
3 a cup actually sounds pretty good to me. I expected it to be a lot less. When you actually think about how many actually coffee beans go into a cup of Starbucks coffee, it's not a lot. The problem is that people are willing to pay $3.50 for something that only costs 10 in raw materials...and then Starbucks gets all the profit.
Starbucks is actually well known for it's good treatment of it's employees. A significant amount of your coffee purchase goes to health insurance where as most large retailers have gone to mostly part time policy to avoid paying benefits. I'm guessing it's their size more than their practices that are making them the target. If you attack Joe's Coffee Hut for paying 20% below market price for dirt cheap beans raised by slave labor you ain't gettin' much press interest. Attack the king of the hill and the press takes notice even if they are in fact paying a fair price for the beans and there really is no story. I used to be a big fan of invegative stories but all too often these days the story is manufactured and once you know the details many turn out to be bogus. Starfbucks may not use Blue Mountain beans but they use good quality beans so I have to believe they pay a decent price for them. They sure charge enough. I use their Expresso beans because the supermarket brands are awful. $10 for a pound of coffee that will last for weeks isn't that bad.
1) Promote conformity by putting a Starbucks on every corner and making each one look the same
2) Promote Brand loyalty by pushing Gift Cards thereby forcing even non-customers to occasionally consume Starbucks
3) Say that we embrace diversity while actually embracing conformity (see above)
4) Reduce the number of artistic venues by putting small coffee shops out of business with our pre-packaged experience
5) Raise the prices on our addictive substance every six months
6) Profit!!!
I think it's the fact that the pissing match is taking place on YouTube that makes it worthy of Slashdot interest.
Of course you guys are the most socially responsible company in the world...you have bought up all of your competition to become that way. But always talking about how much money you throw at people is not going to take away from the fact that even the most uneducated coffee person can still pay upwards of $5 for the worst cup of coffee in the world by standards of roasting. Bloated prices and a sub-standard product...now thats what I call socially responsible. Oh well, you guys just bought Diedrich Coffee so now you don't have to listen to anyones critique. I hope Walmart buys you guys out! PFFFT!
Did you spell espresso correctly? My argument in full fruition exactly. How can you care about the passion of a product of it is not even spelled correctly?
Plus Starbucks uses the part time issue to avoid paying benefits too. Just ask part time employees how easy it is to hit the ceiling of their part time hours status.
-Inoyun
Anything that keeps hippies off my doorstep or street I'm for. At least the cities can save some money on cattle prods, rubber bullets and tear gas.
The fairest trade system in the history of man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
What's the freakin' deal with making up new words for small, medium, and large?
More crap about a company that's only products are image and crappy coffee.
Starbucks coffee is already overpriced, so I imagine there is plenty of room in their profit margin to absorb paying the farmers a little bit more if they wanted to.
Somehow every other coffee place I've been to charges 50-75% less than Starbucks and tastes just as good if not better, and I doubt it's because those coffee places are stiffing their suppliers any more than Starbucks is.
What?
Is now, which side has valid claims ? But then again, news reports in Finland didnt actually say that Starbucks is the bad corporation that is not paying Fare Price for the farmers, just that they didnt sign the copyright agreements about the ethiopian coffee brands and that they are still using those even there are other big coffee companies that have agreed to sign the papers. By copyrighting the name, the farmers & trade commission tries to raise the price as farmers are getting a very small share where ethiopian coffee is held as one of the best coffee brands in the world and thus also the most expensive..
yush
Bloated prices and a sub-standard product...now thats what I call socially responsible
Evidently, the rest of the planet disagrees with you, or they would never be able to sell sub-standard coffee at bloated prices. What color is the sky at your house?
I'm only responding because you were modded insightful:
This is news for nerds not because of what is happening, but because of HOW it's happening.
Not only is Oxfam going directly to the internet to mount a campaign against a corporation (in and of itself a cool thing - proving yet a gain the power of the internet), the corporation responded in kind.
This type of one to one presentation of views has never happened before in such a powerful way. It could herald a new method of consumer/producer interaction, which of course may spill into political spheres. All because of the internet.
It is proof that the internet is radically changing the face of our entire society, so much so that we are only on the cusp of realizing what may happen. Geeky enough for you now?
Bah.
s /et.html
More cleverly packaged propaganda from some of the best packagers in the world.
How do I know that?
1. Starbucks is not a philanthropic organization.
2. The complicated way they are dancing around the issue. All plausible reasons but no one wants to or cares to find out they are in fact clever propaganda. Note, I did not say lies.
3. "in fact, routinely pays well above commodity price" Let's look at some approximate facts from the cia world factbook. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geo
Median age:
total: 17.8 years
male: 17.7 years
female: 17.9 years (2006 est.)
Population below poverty line:
50% (2004 est.)
Household income or consumption by percentage share:
lowest 10%: 3%
highest 10%: 33.7% (1995)
"Above market" means lots of things, most of which don't make starbucks look very good once the general conditions in Ethiopia are added to the discussion.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
You've just insulted 95% of my Bladder.
I am all for making sure a fair price is paid for goods, but we should all beware the "think of the children" appeal without giving due-diligence to the facts. Starbucks typically pays higher than market prices for Ethiopian coffee. Am I missing something or is there some reason they should have to pay even more? Also, America's National Coffee Association was responsible for requesting that the trademarks not be honored, not Starbucks.
That said, what I'm far more concerned about is the other little known coffee companies. Starbucks coffee is expensive, and we're assured that's partly due to the costs being passed onto the coffee farmers. For the sake of argument let's assume that's true. Now, look at the coffee in your local supermarket, particularly your "value" Kwikkymart type supermarkets. In my local one I can get a 1KG tub of coffee for 1.99 and they sell like hotcakes. For those prices I really doubt much of my money (if I was cheap or tasteless enough to buy it) is filtering down to the farmers, if any at all, and I wonder what kind of money any of the related industries (transport, packaging etc) are getting. Who knows what those guys are getting away with?
Bear in mind, I'm also wondering just how much of that 1KG is actually coffee :)
It's because they actually pay for benefits for their workers, even part time. Whole Foods suffers from the same markups.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Propeganda is merely an attempt to sway a group's opinion through communication. "Getting your message out." That message can be truthful or lies, honest or deceptive, present all facts or cherry pick; it just needs to be pursuasive. I think sometims the negative connotation actualy discourages non-deceptive propeganda from more honest parties because they feer being accused of engaging in 'propeganda'.
"You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8
The only way to pay 20% below market price for anything is by buying from a fool or by use of force. If the price of coffee is 20% less than it was a few months ago then that's still the market price.
"blood coffee"
That's the funniest thing I've heard this week.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
I like my women like my coffee: expensive and easily available on many street corners.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
And I do mean a little research... First, I watched both videos. The most notable thing is that neither Oxfam's video-mentioned webpage nor the video itself actually says what Starbucks is doing. They say that starbucks is preventing the manufacturers of this coffee from using the names of the coffee, but that's as close as they come to discussing the actual situation. I was however able to find the information on Oxfam's site using google: http://www.oxfam.org.uk/press/releases/starbucks26 1006.htm. Here's the meat:
What, exactly, does "prompted protests" mean? It's a little further down.
Okay, so if Starbucks is part of the NCA, then they didn't prompt anything - they just did it.
Let's take one more look at the press release.
Starbucks claims that to do so would be illegal, as far as I can see from their video. I don't know how that works out - maybe a lawyer can explain. But September? It's probably taken this long for their legal department to figure out what it says, let alone how they feel about it. We're talking about a document that would have legal repercussions in at least two countries, and possibly in every country in which Starbucks does business. I wouldn't sign the fucker either.
Now let's take a look at some other documents I just googled up...
There's about 25 16oz (coffeeshop standard) cups of coffee per roasted pound. Three cents per cup would be $0.75/lb. Starbucks claims they pay over the fair trade price, which is under a buck and a half per pound.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Interesting ... you believe in free will. Actually the conditioning starts at birth. It is very difficult to own your own head, takes years of serious effort.
Most Starbucks coffee is mediocre. Any speciality roaster should just kill them for quality. In my little town even Thrifty's, a supermarket chain, has better coffee.
It's still 2 groups of irrelevant blowhards in a pissing contest, regardless of what technology they're using. Relevancy used to be a criteria to define what is news and what isn't.
but why is this on Slashdot? Because it mentions youTube? That's all it takes, now?
Let's see your tax returns buddy. I hear your profit margin is pretty large, you made more than $50K last year? Why don't you pay Ethiopian farmers more.
That's just awesome. It's just as accessible as the Oxfam, less boring, and more straightforward. You can repost it on MySpace or wherever you need to.
Aside from that, regional trademarks == bad bad bad. Form Blue Mountain's wikipedia entry:
"Jamaican Blue Mountain Coffee is protected worldwide as a certification trademark meaning that only coffee certified by the Coffee Industry Board of Jamaica can be labeled as such."
So, say the Ethiopian Board of Coffee doesn't like a farmer, I mean hell, there's a lot of problems in that area, it'd be pretty easy to pick some farmers you don't like, whoever the new gov't is, and put a lot of people out of work.
I find it ironic that Starbucks now widely perceived to be in the same big-bad-bin as McDonald's and Coke. It's the first time I've personally witnessed such a transition.
As usual, it's easy to sympathize with the little guy and easy to attack the big guy. The powerless are innocent, the powerful are guilty.
Starbucks is attains self preservation by way of selling things. Oxfam and IFAT are attain self preservation by way of finding people to attack and making people feel guilty.
At least Starbucks is responsible to the market. If we all stop buying their coffee, they're toast Who are Oxfam and IFAT responsible to?
Seing how their US$ 1 Billion is about to go down the drain the moment all copywrighted content is pulled, Google must be very pleased that YouTube is becoming something other than a repository of ripped TV shows and RIAA-infringing wannabe "artists".
--
Your gene pool needs some chlorine.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
Just in case you haven't noticed, Slashdot is now a far left moonbat blog. The slash should be a backslash \. Watch this post. It will disappear in a few minutes. Left Opposing comments or insults to Pedophiles are stricken from the record.
What a bunch of idiots spending $3.50 for something "that only costs 10 in raw materials". That's outrageous, there should be laws against such idiocy. We should make economic freedom illegal.
Sometimes it's difficult to rebut the kind of shoddy investigation that underpins such ecological or political protest as Greenpeace. Then again, one has to wonder whether such misinformation is the result of incompetence or outright lying to gain support. In the case of Greenpeace vs. Apple it seems Greenpeace lied.
Apparently, sensationalist lies tend to generate more checks for the cause.
screw the ethiopian farmers.
screw starbucks too.
I worked there 20 hours a week while doing contracting. Why? Benefits, paid vacation, and tax-free tips. They're a decent company.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
This is tagged map of where the Video Takes Place: http://grapheety.com/?story=201&zoom=14. Enjoy.
What does that have to do with anything? From the intro to your post I was expecting some refute to the claim that Starbucks pays higher than market value for their coffee. Instead you offered a bunch of proof of the fact that the average Ethiopian is poor. How is that Starbuck's fault? They are not responsible for the welfare of the Ethiopian people, they do appear to be trying to help, but to use the fact that Ethiopians are poor as 'proof' of Starbucks not being socially responsible seems to be a bit of a stretch.
Those who can't do currency exchanges, $2.4mil equals 21,166,918.9452 in Ethiopian Birr.
Response to the first port:
Many nerds drink lots of it to stay awake late nights.
"I don't really see what this story has to do with news for nerds"
Ummm, let me help you clarify what it has to do with Slashdot:
1. Nerds drink coffee, lots of coffee.
2. Nerds watch lots of video on youtube, lots of video.
What would you rather they do instead? Stop buying Ethiopian coffee at all? Pay even more for the stuff grown in Ethiopia and thus attract even more growers to the already saturated market?
If Oxfam were really concerned about the third-world farmers, they would've been making noise against Europe's farmer-subsidies, against the smaller-but-still-significant American ones, and against Japan's protectionism. Instead Oxfam goes against a prominent corporation — they are well aware of the shortness of the attention span of their contributors... Much easier to bash a corporation (especially an American one), than to be "against the small farmers", is not it?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The trademark and licensing issue isn't about the farmers at all. It's the ethiopian government trying to bilk Starbucks out of some extra money. That money will not go to the farmers, but will fund the ongoing wars. Kinda like blood diamonds....
>"Above market" means lots of things, most of which don't make starbucks look very good once the general conditions in Ethiopia are added to the discussion.
Starbucks only has to respond to Oxfam's purporting that Starbucks is into cheap-bastardry. They have done so. Since Oxfam only staged protests outside Starbucks and not any other coffee store means Oxfam only cares if Starbucks is cheap. Since they are not (they pay more than normal) Oxfam is therefore wrong.
Here's a comparison: Let's pretend company X pays it's workers $8 per hour in the US. A low wage, to be sure. However, companies A through W pay an average of $6.15 per hour. Even lower! Now, a set of people, let's call them Y, step into the picture. They stand outside company X and accuse them of paying ridiculously low wages! Anyone with a brain would see the predicament Y has stepped into: They have accused the best paying company of being the worst! Y should have investigated better and protested the company paying $2.13 per hour.
Well, guess that, Oxfam did what Y did. They didn't bother doing the math and instead targeted whoever is biggest. That's just sheer stupidity and has ensured that Oxfam is on my list of never-donates (along with PeTA [animal death freezer] and the Canadian Legion [poppy trademark bullshit, freedom my ass!]). Hopefully that lady that said she'd never go to Starbucks IF Oxfam was right now will instead never donate to Oxfam.
I think they'd be going after non-shade-growing coffee farmers, since they're the ones who created the oversupply in the coffee market. As a bonus, they could get a greenpeace tie-in, since removing the shade plants has devastated the biota in many locations.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Amen to that. I can't find a citation but I'm told that Ben Franklin once said or wrote "nine tenths of all men are living suicides". I couldn't agree more. Most people might as well be dead for all the enjoyment and just plain living they get out of life. Grind 9-5 so that you can come home and grind on the weekends too? Fuck that. I have a 9-5, actually, but it's usually not horribly strenuous (although dealing with some of the people here can be downright sickening, let alone tiring) and I'm working my way to somewhere. Preferably out of the country before the USD collapses completely.
Interesting, out here Thrifty's is a drug store, although I think they bought or were bought by Long's or something, and they're all called Long's now? Maybe that was Vessey's, I can't remember.
But it's totally true! Actually even trader joe's has better coffee on the shelf than you can get at starfucks. My lady and I like the Cafe Pajaro, which has a picture of a couple of parrots on it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
1) You do realize that ( at least to my knowledge ) just about all Starbucks are franchises. That means that independent business types approach Starbucks to open shops wherever they open shops, sure Starbucks could be a good samaritan and turn people down, but the fact remains that people approach Starbucks to open stores. Yeah it sucks that some very good and unique coffee shops go under because Starbucks moves into the neighborhood, but it is the local people that vote with their wallets, don't like Starbucks don't buy their stuff, convince people to support the local shops, in essence you only have your neighbours to blame.
2) What larger chain isn't pushing cards, don't like'em don't use'em, and tell your friends/relatives to not get them.
3) Sure only if you buy into the conformity - again don't go to Starbucks if you don't like them. Some people like to walk into a shop in Anytown USA and get a consistent brew of coffee and environment.
4) Again see 1 & 3, just go and support your own local shop with their 'art' or just go visit a local art gallery or artist run center.
5) Boo hoo cry me a river, don't like the price don't use the product, coffee isn't exactly an essential service you know.
6) Damn straight, and it's on the backs of you 'but they are an evil large chain and hurt the local shops and artists who I choose not to support' types.
"This isn't a tech issue or anything, who cares about Starbucks public relations operations or their corporate policies? So they and Oxfam are having a pissing match, big whoop."
a.) Lots of nerds care about what happens to Starbucks.
b.) They used YouTube.
Slashdot isn't always going to have news you're interested in. Sorry.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
"That's the funniest thing I've heard this week."
It's not that funny to those of us that have developed a taste for Raktajino.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
All nations, large and small, need to insure their domestic food production. It is a profound national security issue, as well as a local economy issue. Once that is accomplished you can talk about alleged and so called "free trade".
One of the primary functions of "governments" is to protect it's people. The word protect is clear there. And that means as many as they can, not just the wallets of the top 1%. Ethiopia is well within their rights to try and protect their farmers as much as possible, injcluding protecting their trademarks and other IP which is at the heart of this issue. Exactly the same as the US or the various nations in the EU should.
It is clear that relying on foreign energy sources is not the smoothest move in the world, so when it comes to food, even if it is just coffee, it should be even more clear.
...then I have to wonder about the veracity of their other claims, and necessarily also wonder whether their organization is performing adequately in the interests of its donors.
Seriously, if they bungle assertions that they know will be examined in the court of public opinion, how likely could it be that decisions are also being made with bad information or not even that, behind the scenes, where there is no oversight?
Economists, for a start. The standard economic argument against Fairtrade goes like this: the low price of commodities such as coffee is due to overproduction, and ought to be a signal to producers to switch to growing other crops. Paying a guaranteed Fairtrade premium--in effect, a subsidy--both prevents this signal from getting through and, by raising the average price paid for coffee, encourages more producers to enter the market. This then drives down the price of non-Fairtrade coffee even further, making non-Fairtrade farmers poorer. Fairtrade does not address the basic problem, argues Tim Harford, author of "The Undercover Economist" (2005), which is that too much coffee is being produced in the first place. Instead, it could even encourage more production.
Mr Bretman of FLO International disagrees. In practice, he says, farmers cannot afford to diversify out of coffee when the price falls. Fairtrade producers can use the premiums they receive to make the necessary investments to diversify into other crops. But surely the price guarantee actually reduces the incentive to diversify?
Another objection to Fairtrade is that certification is predicated on political assumptions about the best way to organise labour. In particular, for some commodities (including coffee) certification is available only to co-operatives of small producers, who are deemed to be most likely to give workers a fair deal when deciding how to spend the Fairtrade premium. Coffee plantations or large family firms cannot be certified. Mr Bretman says the rules vary from commodity to commodity, but are intended to ensure that the Fairtrade system helps those most in need. Yet limiting certification to co-ops means "missing out on helping the vast majority of farm workers, who work on plantations," says Mr Wille of the Rainforest Alliance, which certifies producers of all kinds.
Guaranteeing a minimum price also means there is no incentive to improve quality, grumble coffee-drinkers, who find that the quality of Fairtrade brews varies widely. Again, the Rainforest Alliance does things differently. It does not guarantee a minimum price or offer a premium but provides training, advice and better access to credit. That consumers are often willing to pay more for a product with the RA logo on it is an added bonus, not the result of a formal subsidy scheme; such products must still fend for themselves in the marketplace. "We want farmers to have control of their own destinies, to learn to market their products in these competitive globalised markets, so they are not dependent on some NGO," says Mr Wille.
But perhaps the most cogent objection to Fairtrade is that it is an inefficient way to get money to poor producers. Retailers add their own enormous mark-ups to Fairtrade products and mislead consumers into thinking that all of the premium they are paying is passed on. Mr Harford calculates that only 10% of the premium paid for Fairtrade coffee in a coffee bar trickles down to the producer. Fairtrade coffee, like the organic produce sold in supermarkets, is used by retailers as a means of identifying price-insensitive consumers who will pay more, he says.
As with organic food, the Fairtrade movement is unde
Step 1. Convince humans to grant me the legal rights of a natural person.
Step 2. Leverage my ability to never die and to farm the responsibilities for my actions out to replaceable 'employees'
Step 3. Become the dominant organisation to such an overwhelming extent that the majority of humans don't even consider the idea that my powers are illegitimate.
Step 4. profit!!! (no, really)
Why yes, let us look at the real facts. Please forgive the next paragraph, which is necessary to foil the fucking retarded lameness filter.
Nam ornare odio a ligula. Fusce et pede. Vestibulum nisl dolor, sollicitudin in, aliquam ac, pulvinar ultrices, lacus. Quisque viverra dapibus massa. Praesent erat sem, molestie sed, suscipit in, convallis non, lacus. Fusce blandit fringilla orci. Proin adipiscing libero a diam. Duis nisi mauris, pulvinar sed, vulputate in, cursus malesuada, justo. Praesent a leo. Donec at massa sed pede feugiat pulvinar. Etiam id metus. Nulla sed orci. Ut condimentum, libero eu pharetra pulvinar, quam ligula ornare odio, in pharetra sapien nibh dapibus leo. Suspendisse dapibus velit eu urna. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I find it incredible the number of pro-starbucks replies to this that say "their a decent company, blah, blah, blah" mainly because they pay health insurance and claim to pay more to farmers.
As another poster above has said the idea of fair-trade commodities has been around for a while and Oxfam have been very important to its promotion. If Starbucks are so socially committed they should put put themselves to the small trouble to get accredited and be able to show the world someone apart from their PR department agrees with their analysis.
As to their treatment of US based staff - shouldn't you be attacking those who don't provide basic rights rather than praising those that do?
Also, we hate Starbucks as they are another example of the homogenisation of the world by the bland and vacuous. They also have a huge advertising budget.
My advice, find a local coffee roaster that knows what they are doing (most don't). Ask what kind of roaster they use. (Dietrich is good) Ask how they store and sort their beans (sorted before and after roasting to remove clinkers, stored in a cool dry location before roasting and in airtight containers (with a vent, coffee outgasses like crazy after roasting) after. Ask about their beans, whether they are estate grown, shade grown, fair trade, etc. At the first sign that they don't know what you are talking about, leave.
Now, ask for their freshest beans. Try to get some that have just been roasted. Whole bean only. The difference will amaze you, it's like you are drinking an entirely different beverage. The difference between good gourmet coffee and bad gourmet coffee is actually greater than the difference between gourmet coffee and truck stop coffee.
Most of the complex varietal flavor in coffee comes from the gasses trapped in the beans. These escape withing two days, or about an hour after grinding. So if you want the absolute ultimate cup of coffee, buy some green beans (any good roaster will let you buy green beans) and roast them yourelf. Use a cast iron skillet and stir with a wooden spoon, on the highest heat your stove is capable of. When the beans are a shade or two lighter than you normally like them, pour the beans into another heat-proof container and toss them around a bit to cool them. They will continue to darken as they cool. If you like that, there are personal roasters you can buy for under $150 US that make the process much easier.
Starbucks roast their beans too dark, don't take enough care sorting clinkers, and their coffee is a week old by the time it even gets to the stores. It is NOT good coffee.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
To hell with relevancy, we need ad impressions!
There, now this story is geeky.
Strangely, Oxfam and Starbucks had been working together on Fair Trade up until October of 2004 - see : http://www.oxfamamerica.org/newsandpublications/pr ess_releases/archive2002/art3007.html
t ory/0,,1430638,00.html )
There's even some allegation that Oxfam stopped working with Starbucks due to political pressure ( see http://society.guardian.co.uk/charitymanagement/s
So, say the Ethiopian Board of Coffee doesn't like a farmer, I mean hell, there's a lot of problems in that area, it'd be pretty easy to pick some farmers you don't like, whoever the new gov't is, and put a lot of people out of work.
Living and producing your wine in the Burgundy region isn't enough to allow you to sell wine called Burgundy. Who's to say that the French government doesn't put the thumb on individual vintners? It wouldn't take much imagination.
And then who's to say that beans trademarked Ethiopian "Sidamo" would actually come from Sidamo? There's no requirement that "Kentucky Fried Chicken" come from Kentucky.
It does nothing for consumers or growers, but it would do some corrupt government officials and generals some good. Anyway, my $.02.
As to QA, this just isn't so. My son did his internship at the Starbucks roasting facility in Auburn, WA, an operation that is highly computer controlled (so they do know exactly how they are roasting the beans), they have an extensive QA program. So, if the coffee sucks, it's because they like it that way (!!!).
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
The internet is obviously changing our society quicker and in more sweeping ways than we all realize, given that so many people's reaction to witnessing this exchange is one of apathy.
And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be bannana-shaped.
...doesnt mean that 90% of the readers of this site don't down plenty of this stuff anyway. Frankly, THIS nerd would be far more devastated by negative news about the availability of coffee than microsoft, google, or even *gasp* linux.
Every culture and subculture has some form of 'machismo'. In the world at large, machismo mostly consists of its literal interpretation, ie. doing those things that you stereotypically associate with being male: ie. being physically fit, healthy and attractive, being able to bed large numbers of women, being able to tolerate large amounts of drink and so on. Nerds, on the other hand, are very poor at these things. But they still need some form of token machismo so they can show off to their peers. This manifests itself in a couple of different ways. The obvious one is showing off your technical ability, eg. by displaying arcane knowledge of poorly documented parts of your OS. And another is to show off your ability to tolerate caffeine. Just observe any group of nerds together and watch the endless stream of little geeky jokes displaying their insecurity about caffeine: "The day hasn't started until my fifth coffee", "I'm a machine to turn caffeine into code", "why would anyone drink decaf?", even clothing to show off ones's capability for caffeine intake. Nerds worry that if they don't make these little comments, their ability to tolerate caffeine will be doubted and they will be perceived as somehow inferior.
And hence it's no surprise that Starbucks is an important part of geek culture.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
I wish other companies would follow this lead - transparent, straight-forward, no-BS rebuttals of claims against them.
Next month, CmdrTaco uploads a video to YouTube calmly providing a point-by-point rebuttal on why it's unrealistic to expect slashdot editors to proofread submissions, check for dupes, refrain from adding editorial comments to posted stories, and RTFA.
The month after that, someone posts their re-rebuttal that, yeah, actually, it's pretty reasonable to expect such things and scores of slashdotters include the link in their slashdot sig.
The following month, the GNAA posts their response to both videos.
I can really see this YouTube rebuttal thing taking off! :)
I like the free market and you don't. I aint gonna try to change your commie mind on that issue. I'll only argue with
Before Starbucks came to my area (i live near mesa, az) there were 2 proper coffee houses. After starbucks, there are at least 5 that I know of. Why? Starbucks has grown the market. And ironically the competition here manages to stay afloat by emphasizing live bands, poetry readings(ugh), and offering better pastries (I like starbucks coffee, but their food is crap).
Independent competition thrives, but they must be competitive. Once Starbucks starts buying up coffee plantations and shutting out buyers, or if these Oxfam allegations are true I'll take issue with it. If a company that works hard to earn my business and is good to their employees, why not reward them w/ my patronage?
Damn these HTML markup tags! Please mentally unitalicize my post. I need more coffee.
It sounds to me like you work with an annoying guy who is obsessed with coffee, but instead of complaining to him about it, you bitch on the Internet about nerds. Who's being macho, now?
People often wear clothing to express themselves. If I like rowing, I might wear a rowing t-shirt. If I like new york, I might wear an I 3 NY t-shirt. If I like both programming and coffee, I might wear a "coffee into code" shirt. "Macho" doesn't enter in to it. It's just expression.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Get Oxfam and the RIAA together.
They can really teach each other a thing or two about how markets should really work in the real world!
Uh huh, you betchya. Can you just imagine that bastardly combination of mis-guided world-views???
Folks on this Oxfam video: empty headed, do-good, sensationalists. "Save the gay baby whales!" bumper stickers must be back in vogue, again.
In their mis-guided - if 'honorable' - efforts to help the 'less fortunate', all they accomplish is looking like the bunch of ignorant children. "The world ain't Fair!". Show me on your birth certificate where it says "it's fair".
I can only hope Oxfam itself has some mature leadership than was demonstrated by their 'supporters' here.
Instead of whining about what is, change it. No, you're not going to change reality with wishes or sandwich boards. No matter how loud you scream, you'll not get anyone else to change it for you. You gotta put in real efforts yourself, real resources like supplies, materials, blood, education - even their own. However, it just doesn't play as well on Youtube. It's so much easier to 'go after' a successful capitalist 'entity', point fingers and complain than really invest of yourself to make a tangible difference. Wonder how many of them went home after their 'day of action' to a cup of coffee distributed by some other reseller. Wonder how many of them have been to Ethiopia or even sent of their own resources to anyone in Ethiopia. Wonder how many have spent of themselves to improve anyone else's standard of living instead of blocking a sidewalk a few blocks from their own kitchens cuz that was the 'cause de jour'.
Kudos to Starbucks - gotta give 'em credit for trying. They buy these folk's products, they support their efforts in real ways, they offered a workable solution to this 'trademark' question. Why? Because they're out to save the world? Cuz it 'feels good'? Because someone told 'em to buy poor farmers products? No - it's simply good business. By making money themselves, their business improves the quality of life of their suppliers - incidentaly. Believe me, that's NOT their goal. However, they do make a real difference in the real world without expecting someone else to hand it out. A "minor" detail Oxfam not only overlooks, but neglects to understand.
Maybe if Oxfam could generate some other markets for Ethiopian products or support Ethiopians in producing products for existing markets....
Anyone who thinks the world owes them anything is delusional. Hell, on this planet, you'll be one of the lucky ones if at the end, you get your own hole in the ground.
Senior NCO in the fight against entropy. I've seen things, man. Things no one should have to see.....
Now, Mt. Dew on the other hand... Starbucks is another one of those "keep up with the Jones" thingys.....SUV's, nightclubs, clothes etc. The only reason they do these things is the pack mentality of weak minded people who can't think for themselves, get thier news from "Entertainment Tonight" type shows. They have to go along with everyone else.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
1) A pledge to make their coffee stop tasting burnt (yes, I know, that's how they prepare it. And it taste like crap.) 2) Make it possible to order one of their "complicated" coffees without sounding ... gay. I'd like a double-latte, half caf, with a twist and double foam just sounds wrong ...
Bark less. Wag more.
Giving the Ethiopian government trademarks on ethiopian regions so that they (the ethiopian government) can manage the branding of the beans that come from those regions wouldn't accomplish what the oxfam people want- it might enrich the ethiopian government, but would do little to benefit the co-op growers. What Starbucks wants (that is, regional certification of beans, rather than granting the ethiopian government a monopoly on the use of the names) would accomplish the same branding result- the ability for regional growers to market beans from that region at a premium. The reason the Ethiopian government doesn't like that is that it wouldn't own the brand names.i a.htm] "Under Ethiopia's land tenure system, the government owns all land and provides long-term leases to the tenants; the system continues to hamper growth in the industrial sector as entrepreneurs are unable to use land as collateral for loans".
The Ethiopian government already owns too much of the coffee business. According to the CIA fact book, [http://geography.about.com/library/cia/blcethiop
Oxfam seems to have cast Starbucks as the big, bad, mean corporation exploiting poor agricultural workers in a third world country and denying those poor Ethiopians the right to their own region names. Another equally valid view is that Starbucks sees the co-op growers and their government as being distinct, and wants to benefit the growers rather than giving more of their business away to their landlords. Certainly there's something in it for Starbucks- they don't want to pay a royalty to what is essentially a 3rd party for the ability to sell ethiopian coffee as ethiopian coffee. The ethiopian government doesn't want regional certification of beans because it wants a direct royalty on the use of the region names- it seems not to care whether the value of the name will fetch higher market prices if they're not the ones being paid.
Also, it's easy for oxfam to throw out the fact that coffee growers make $.03/cup of coffee, and then leave it to the average person to figure that they're getting screwed- after all, a cup of coffee at Starbucks costs 2 bucks, shouldn't the grower get more? It may help to know that Starbucks probably makes about $.11/cup from their coffee. (or at least, 10 years ago when I worked for a smaller coffee company that Starbucks bought, that's what a cup's worth of beans cost wholesale. In other words, in terms of wholesale beans, about 27% of that cost makes it to the grower. It might be a little galling to realize that for the $2 you paid for that cuppa joe, $1.89 of it is for everything but the beans- starbucks is in the milk, service, and franchising business, people.)
If there's one thing I won't stand for, it's intolerance.
Since Starbucks won't learn how not to burn their beans, just ask for a Ristretto shot (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ristretto) which is the sweeter part of the shot. It compensates for the burnt crappyness if you must drink Starbucks.
*** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
Furthermore, the guy conveniently omits that "Starbucks intervened in the USPTO decision by prompting the National Coffee Association of USA, Inc. (NCA), of which it is a leading member, to oppose the approval of the trademarks." (see here) Why would Starbucks actively oppose the Ethiopian trademark application if they really wanted to help Ethiopian farmers?
All the talk about "we want the farmers to succeed, we built schools, we pay over commodity prices", while making up 90% of the video, is bullshit and completely besides the point. They don't care about that charity crap, they want hard and cold trademark agreements.
... to "let Ethiopia trademark" anything. The USPTO has that power, ans Starbucks (among others) opposed it on the grounds that the names were already generic and in use. A concept the /. community should be familiar with. The PTO agreed and denied the applications.
This is a good thing. What Starbucks is really afraid of is that once "trademarked", the corrupt Ethiopian government will then dilute the brands by selling beans from other regions marking them as being from a "premium region". They will milk the brands one at a time, and then rotate the good beans through various trade names to keep interest up. This, BTW, is what Cuba has done to their once great (now crap) cigar industry.
Starbucks has the proper solution to this problem, one which will be better for the farmers in the long run. Regional certification. Like Kona Coffee or Idaho Potatos. Regional production and quality standards must be met to bear the label. This encourages protection of the regional name by all parties, and discourages trademark trickery by a corrupt state.
I just want to say that's one of the funniest things I've read about geeks. Nice :)
The big irony is that the very people screaming the loudest are Starbucks' target market: Self-absorbed 'Trendy' people who're willing to pay a premium to be part of the latest fad. In fact, the price might even be a selling point.
Interestingly, Ubuntu seems to use the "starbucks color scheme." so they're probably on to something.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I think you are being naive.
The system favours the rich, because the rich can manipulate the rules of the system. In an extreme case, if the rich were to employ the mafia to shoot people who do not participate in the trade, then naturally all the poor people would make a trade where they give away everything for no return - the trade would then be beneficial to the rich, obviously, but also beneficial to the poor, since they don't get shot. But just? Hardly.
From advertising to propaganda to education to law and so on, control of people's perceptions and reality of 'their best interest' is an established strategy. Why grant regulation by elected governments special attention as only one of such maneuvers?
And rowing websites don't have coder shirts. So what?
Yep, I'm missing the point I guess, but I doubt I'm missing out on much.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
My understanding of fair trade is that it pays a fixed, *low* amount for coffee, irrespective of the market. It's not about forcing up prices, but instead offering an insurance against volatility in the market price. (which is important when most sellers have very little in terms of savings)
If the price is set fairly (heh), it should have no such impact.
Starbucks as a company seems to have made over $500 million this year in simple profit.
In 2005 the outgoing CEO (Orin Smith) and Chairman (Howard Schultz) took home over $30 million *each* from selling stock.
My question is simple. Don't they have enough money?
I think they can afford to pay Ethiopian farmers more, and given that the Per Capita GDP is $900 over there even a few bucks a person could help, or better yet, buy and forgive some of their debt which consumes 106% of national GDP.
I'm crazy, what can I say?
Back on topic though, Starbucks is not a good place to buy coffee if you actually enjoy the taste of coffee. The reason is that they burn the beans pretty badly so you can taste a bit of coffee flavor over the fru-fru. It's also not a good place to buy coffee if you care about the well-being of the 3rd-world coffee farmers in question, as Starbucks apparently only buy a minuscule portion of their product at Fair Trade pricing; look for yourself. Also, it's not a good place to buy coffee if you don't want to deal with dishonest corporations. As it turns out, the Starbucks spokesperson in the 'tube video is a bit on the dishonest side, as it's fairly well-known that Starbucks went out of their way to block the trademarks in question, verifiable by a quick search via Google .
Working in a DevOps shop is like playing in a band made up entirely of keytarists.
And will be seen by what, 10% of the population ? Do you think one single person will stop buying Starbucks crap because of this ? One of the OP was right, there target market is self important liberal geeks. Do you think any of them will take their beemers to Dunkin Donuts because of this ?
Fuck Starbucks. Fuck the Ethiopians.
This is neither "News for Nerds", nor "Stuff That Matters".
Next!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
they seem to get it... well atleast more than your avg corp... even though my east coast bias favors dunkin'donuts.. what I piss out is what's served by da bucks
And Starbucks is church. Yep, I like Starbucks. So what. I also like Pete's and Tully's.
As for the protest against Starbucks. Typical unwashed hippie thinking, "they are a successful corporation, so they must be evil."
-- Will program for bandwidth
If you'd done even rudimentary research, you'd have discovered that Oxfam has been very vocal in opposing farm subsidies. Try Googling something like oxfam "farm subsidies".
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
It's called a coffeemaker. With an automatic timer, it's better than any barista could ever hope to be. Want proof? Try ordering a latte in your underpants tomorrow morning. Extra points for getting coffee without the underpants. Double bonus for assless chaps.
This is how it works in the world of the Socialist, and what I mean by "the world of the Socialist", I mean here - at Slashdot.
All capitalists are bad. Other than making money, they would love nothing more than to screw their suppliers out of business. They would love if they had no suppliers. I know it makes no sense that the retailers would want to end up with no product to sell, but that's just how it is. The Socialists tell me so. Always make it sound like the big bad corporations have their henchmen posted in some far off land, oppressing the poor third world farmer, cracking the whip, forcing them to BE farmers or textile workers.
Never allow blame to be placed on the LOCAL governments who can't get their shit together economically and create good jobs for their people.
When quoting value, always make sure your numbers are absolute in relation to the US dollar. 3 US cents is equivalent to nearly 28 cents US in Ethopia. This doesn't matter of course and as a rule of thumb, you ALWAYS use the US equiv when out selling the propaganda. The US economy is stronger than any third world country and you wouldn't want them to know that an the average Ethopian would sell their sister for the land to grow coffee beans on.
Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...
Well, we don't have a local roastery. We don't even have a good local coffee shop. We've got a fair trade place with great atmosphere and average coffee (_terrible_ frozen drinks, good food though), a couple pseudo-chains with ok coffee, and Starbucks.
When it comes down to it, given the lack of decent choices - I'll go to one shop that has a decent frappe (if you add a couple shots of espresso and some flavour) or I'll hit Starbucks drive-through. When I'm in the city, I'll go to real coffee shops and it's just fantastic... but I can't get that here.
When it comes down to it, in comparing Starbucks with the local shops - their lines move faster, their employees are reasonably perky and on the ball, and the quality is consistent. It's not _great_ quality, but I know what it'll be. I've also never had them make me wait to give my order while they talked on the phone. =) If I had a better option, of course, I'd be all over it, but I doubt there's a market for it where I live.
~ Leilah
It's interesting to watch all the free software geeks defending the intellectual property claim of a huge business. But, of course, it makes money; it's OK. Starbucks has put out of business in various ways a number of my favorite cafes, replacing them with their uncomfortable places that serve super-bitter coffee (and charge for WiFI). Personally, I hope they have lots of problems.
For the apparently daft: the GP was trying to show that coffee is an important part of geek culture, and is therefore fit to be presented on this site as 'news for nerds.'
You can find them still at camping/outdoor type stores. Since they need no electricity, you can use them to make coffee on a portable gas stove or, in a pinch, over a campfire. And they're sturdier than a french press, which is almost always made of glass, and has other fairly delicate parts.
I can't recall the last time I saw a percolator in a Starbucks, Peet's, or any other mainstream coffee shop though. Certainly, it's not what they use behind the counter.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
lot of us simply enjoy coffee because we like the taste. YouTube is a new media in what we all consider our sphere of interest and when organisations such as Oxfam, a dreary bunch of well-intentioned old farts and Starbucks, a dreary bunch of self-interested old capitalist farts hold a mini-deathmatch it is a marvellous opportunity for us all to indulge in another of our favourite activities - review - critical, reasoned or otherwise. Pretty much the foundation of the democratic process, which of course is a good thing or we wouldn't all read it. On the critical judgement side, while my family and friends are happy to queue for hours, or swim through a trench filled with snot and vomit to get a cup of the old two-tailed mermaid's brew, I don't particularly like it. This is because I drink it black without sweetener and I can tell that a cup of coffee from any of the other fast food chains is slightly more palatable. Starbucks obsession with daft trademarked adjectives is also amusing particulary since I live in mainland Europe and the difference is not immediately apparent to the staff who's first language is not necessarily that of Starbucks Standard English. Their coffee reminds me of that old standard of travellers - British Rail Tea, a beverage infamous because it could not be distinguished from British Rail Coffee or British Rail Beef Tea.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
Nope- your post is still there.
OSx86 FTW
It's interesting how people don't just sit and think about what they've learned in high school economics. Theres something called supply and demand. It's simple. Starbucks has a bit of responsibility in promoting gourmet coffee. Starbucks has many convenient locations, so people drink more coffee. They create more demand for coffee beans because it's more convenient. More ethiopians start growing coffee to compensate for extra demand. The production grows and provides more jobs to poor ethiopians until coffee prices reach an equiliberiam price. More ethiopians have a meal for the night. I like that.
Just ask yourself a question. Did ethiopians get paid more before starbucks? Probably not.
It's interesting how some Americans despise big corporations. You can simply stop shopping at these places, but the issue isn't about the price starbucks pays for coffee. People just don't like starbucks and will make any excuse to get pissed at them.
If you're going to go out of your way to tell someone what "propeganda" is, please learn how to spell it first.
Too many comments, might have been said, don't care, but offering this tidbit: GDP for Ethiopia is just under $65 billion US, over a population of 75 million, that averages out to about $867 per capita annual production. I'm sure the average working citizen makes around $600 or less. 3 cents per cup of coffee for a coffee bean farm.. Man I won't even do the calculations, but I'm sure just one cubic meter of coffee beans makes a hundred times that much coffee. So let's say that a 16 oz cup of black coffee goes for $1.25 at Starbucks (thats what it is where I live - Tacoma, Wa.), you'd get over 2000 cups of coffee (generously) from a cubic meter of coffee at a rate of 1 cubic meter beans = 100 cubic meters coffee. 2000 16oz cups = $2500 for Starbucks in gross income I'm sure the 3 cents a cup estimate by those people is at an 8 oz estimate, but to be generous, I'll estimate the coffee farmers' gains by 16oz cups. 2000 16oz cups = $60.00 for a farmer That's $60.00 US per cubic meter. A cubic meter is about 28 bushels. That's over $2 a bushel. US CORN PRICES PER BUSHEL ARE $2.05. AND THATS IN THE US, ETHIOPIA'S ECONOMY ISN'T AS STABLE AS OURS. THE DUDES THAT MAKE THE COFFEE CUPS FOR STARBUCKS ARE MAKING LESS THAN 1 CENT PER CUP OF COFFEE Simply, if you raise the price of goods to Ethiopia, you risk creating an economy bubble. The costs are so low and the profit so high, that everyone goes into farming coffee beans in Ethiopia. All of a sudden, no one is mining, no one is teaching classes, no one is doing government paper work, because none of it pays enough. I'm game to improving economies, but someone please give the idiots in these economic organizations for global prosperity a lesson in basic economics! The world just doesn't work that way. Instead of paying them 2 or 3 more cents per cup of coffee, why don't we ask for Starbucks to donate 1 cent for every cup of coffee to building national infrastructure in Ethiopia. Then they can reduce the cost of shipping coffee and improve the safety of their merchandise, allowing more to get to market at lower cost, increasing profit. And infrastructure in those countries improves other industries like mining, other agricultural sectors and textiles. Honestly... don't worry about the coffee industry WHEN THEIR CHILDREN ARE STILL DYING OF STARVATION OR SHOOTING EACH OTHER WITH IMPORTED COLD-WAR WEAPONS BECAUSE OF A LACK OF BASIC POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC STABILITY.
to switch to Starbucks; my coffee tastes like mud...
In order to save face with their "youthful" demographic,Starbucks figured what better way to show the kids that they can "get down verbally" by posting on YouTube
Looks like Oxfam needs to lay off the coffee.
How is Starbucks irrelevant? People go there every day!!
For more information, go here.
Happy people make bad consumers.
...if I could remember the difference between tall and vente.
You do know that the reason Blue Mountain, Kona, etc. are so expensive is not so much that they taste especially great, but that the production is so limited.
Personally, I've tried a lot of beans, and there just isn't a lot of correlation between cost and taste. I've had Ethiopian beans (at $30 a kilo) that tasted like ass, and I've had Kenyan beans (at $10 a kilo) that tasted great.
Don't turn your nose up just because the price is low, you have to sample a lot of varieties and choose the ones that work for you.
But it -is- all about roasting your own and keeping it fresh, I totally agree.
To get back on topic, I think the reason Starbucks espresso tastes so bad is that it is way too hot. They scald the coffee. The best way to judge a coffee shop is to try the espresso straight. Of course if you haven't had real good coffee before, you don't know what you are missing, and might be better off for it.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
I donate to Oxfam via quirky presents every Christmas -- I buy my family goats/ condom kits/ toilets etc. The rest of the year I get sent their newsletters, which play repeteadly on one kind of story, which can also be seen in many newspapers and heard at many polite dinner tables...
"Help the poor virtuous little people in their struggle against the big evil people!"
Starbucks is big and therefore slots nicely into this story as being big and therefore evil. In the UK many nice middle-class people refuse to have Starbucks, because it's American/ multinational/ must be destroying someone's indigenous something.
IMHO this is probably a key reason why Oxfam choose Starbucks -- becuase they know "Ethiopians vs. Starbucks" a story which will resonate with their target audience.
There's just one problem with this story: it's a crude oversimplification; and if your aim is truly to liberate people in developing countries from poverty, big corporations have done a far better job than charities.
How? Through global capitalism, which in East Asia has brought about the greatest mass liberation from poverty in the history of the planet. For interesting data, check out: http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/ [undp.org] (Click on "full report")
I'm not an expert on the situation in Ethiopia, but I find it very easy to believe Starbucks' rebuttal. My sister (unhappy recipient of various Oxfam goats etc from me) has just started work as a teacher in the UK. And was interested to note that she's being paid less than a Starbucks barista. But does this people think "oh, Starbucks pay their people well"? Hell, no -- because "Help the poor virtuous little people in their struggle against the big evil people!" remains a seductive story, almost regardless of how the big people actually behave...
Starbucks provides a good atmosphere, by and large, to sit and drink your coffee. Sure, it's not as homely as mom and pops down the street, but you *always* know that when you go into a starbucks, any starbucks, itll be a good atmosphere to sit, drink your Jo, and read a paper/get work done/study/etc. Have you ever tried to sit and read at a McDonalds or a Dunkin Donuts? Ugh! But I can go into any starbucks in midtown, grab a cup of coffee, and read.
It's a known comfort level, with a known, decent (not great but fine for 90% ppl out there) cup o' caffiene
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
Maybe this is slightly off topic, but did anyone see that episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit!? where they went after the environmentalist movement and rebutted alot of their myths? (note: This film is slightly old and science in general has moved on bit)
Point being, Those that campaign for groups such as Oxfam and alike on issues such and "corprate ethical responsibility" the majority generally don't have a clue as to the real "facts" behind the issues and just jump on the bandwagon because its "cool" to do so. This video put out by Starbucks is exactly what P&T did, and called bullshit on Oxfam. Now I'm not saying Oxfam, like allot of charities don't do a good job at helping many people in the third world by providing clean drinking water and basic medical assistance and such. but the issues they bring against Starbucks has the strong wiff of anti-capitalism which Oxfam shouldn't be focused on.
The same kind of people (not Oxfam) managed to get coke banned at our university campus (Sussex) by using the exact same moral-bullying tactics and manipulating the Student Unions 'Democratic' voting procedures despite them being in the minority of opinion.
Just my two cents worth....
Starsbucks brand image is about a "third place" or home where you can go and be yourself and feel special (by buying their high margin drinks).
Being a company that screws coffee farmers (or at least gets caught doing it) is not part of that brand image.
It's the same reason they call their staff baristas, to make the customer and the staff feel like they're special.
Reality is a little different. They are the most profitable company in their industry. As a fast growing shareholder company Starbucks is a classic business case (studied in business schools the world over) for inventing and using every trick to kill small coffee shop competitors and the Walmartization of coffee. In fact most of that profit is used to fuel growth (new outlets).
1) Location:
Starbucks pursues a systematic strategy of saturation growth in each city they target, putting up so many Starbucks in (have you ever wondered why there's 3 within walking distance of your office) that they actually start canabalizing (stealing customers from) each other . Why do they do this? After all it costs them money, but it ensures that a Starbucks is almost always closer than the small coffee shop you used to go to.
2) Coffee quality:
It is correct that Starbucks did raise the quality of coffee in North America (sorry but this is not a hard thing to do). Starbucks has focused its buying roasting and delivery strategy (and invented specialty vacuum packaging) to deliver a consistent quality that can originate from almost any decent coffee farmer.
Then they have built up a supply chain that cuts out many of the middle man importers and roasters (who the gourmet coffee houses buy from) to buy directly from the farmer. By doing this they have become the Goliath of coffee buyers to the point where they are one of the biggest coffee buyer's period. As a small to medium size coffee farmer you generally do whatever they ask you to or they stop buying from you. Because of their buying volume they have negatively affected market prices. They help define "what a fair price is".
I'm likely to believe the coffee farmers on this one, when they say they are getting screwed.
3) Starbucks staff treatment:
Why does Starbucks offer health care? The answer here is simple: Small coffee houses with independent owners cant afford to do so and compete with Starbucks (remember they buy their coffee from a more expensive middle man). This way Starbucks can poach the best staff and create staffing problems for the competitor.
As for treatment of its staff... almost all are part time. Why? because its cheaper. In fact Starbucks uses computer tracking through the till to determine when its staff are most productive and deliberately give them odd hours to work. So if someone is good in the morning with high productivity they will start at 6am and work til 10am when they get less productive, to be sent home and then come in at 3pm again for 2 to 3 hours. In total they all get less work per week than the number of hours that make them eligible for full time benefits (35 hrs in Canada). Look at the staff in Starbucks their all University students and under 35... (because you cant really make a living at Starbucks full time)
Don't doubt it, this is all about one thing: PROFIT.
The reason corporations try to look fair is because its part of their BRAND
image which helps them make MONEY. Corporations are amoral (don't have morals) entities driven by the bottom line. Anyone that believes differently is naive.
But hey what do I know...
Personally I think their coffee is over priced for what it is.
----- "Profanity is the one language that all programmers understand."
Some coffee houses went out of business around here when Starbucks showed up, but they were almost uniformly ghastly. The ones that are good are still here. (And the local Peets is always hopping despite being a short walk from four different Starbucks.)
The cake is a pie
As a son of African immigrants, I'm a little familiar with the exchange rates between here and African countries. A dollar goes a VERY long way in alot of them. These protesters use these shock value numbers because most people in this country don't get it. Believe me 3 cents over there is better than nothing!
Add to that the ability to eat spicy food. My 112 pound girlfriend routinely describes me as a wimp because I won't eat thai chili peppers straight. I'm a bike racer and weightlifter and have taken 10 years of various martial arts, but I'm the wimp.
It's all about choosing your battles...
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
There's an essay in "The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond about how certain Mayan kings would show off how macho they were by ingesting large amounts of alcohol or other substances and it struck me that this was similar to patterns of caffeine usage among geeks. Fortunately geeks differ from Mayan kings because they don't take caffeine as an enema. Check out the quotation here (scroll down to where "jared diamond" is mentioned). I wonder if they used chilis in this way...
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
I'm sure the years of training to become a "barista" must have been grueling. Call it what you want, but he's still basically a fry-boy.
> , I did know anal retentive baristas that didn't allow you to get away with calling your drink in the wrong order :-P Ah,
> (i.e. non-fat, before 'no whip', etc), nevermind if you used non-Starbucks lingo to describe the sizes
> coffee semantics. This thread is beautiful...
You didn't find it at all annoying when people would come in and try to fuck with you with their stupid little word games? Really, if someone has that much of a chip on their shoulder about the fact that they're in a Starbucks, why are they in a Starbucks in the first place. I don't see why the bitter and miserable old fools who are so very offended that the 16oz size is called a grande or that the number of shots is properly called before the cup size, or that we don't pretend to be east coast snobs and shout "OLE!" instead of just calling a misto what it is, don't go somewhere else instead of going out of their way to seek out the object of their ire, and fuck with the poor kid, behind the counter, who's just trying to earn a paycheck.
"3) Say that we embrace diversity while actually embracing conformity (see above)"
There's a Starbucks at the lobby area of the building I work in (big surprise, right?)...
I wear a ring with a big blatant pentagram on it. To some people, this means I perform satanic rituals, cast harmful "spells" on people, or am just a "bad person", somehow doomed to a painful afterlife in Hell. I get weird/cautious looks pretty often because of it, since it pretty much singles me out as the ultimate enemy of Christianity (or so it feels, sometimes).
Amazingly, the only people who EVER mention a single conversational thing about this pentagram ring of mine happen to both be employees at the Starbucks in my office building. They are totally conservative people (as is everyone else in this damn area), yet they actually ARE accepting of diversity, perhaps even "embracing", to the point where they start discussing religion-related things with me while I'm buying a coffee or whatever.
Frankly, when I read that description of Starbucks' alleged values in the grandparent post, I thought to myself something along the lines that "yeah, that does seem about right", considering my 2 year experience of frequenting Starbucks stores at least a few times a week has given me the impression of those exact values among the employees.
Most people don't go to Starbucks because its the cool thing to do. If that were the case it would have fizzled out long ago. I know more people who avoid Starbucks because its the cool thing to do. People go to Starbucks because its comfortable, convinient and it gives them their fix wether they like the flavor of coffee or not. A lot of people do like the flavor of their drinks. Many people don't like the real flavor of coffee so they disguise it while others feel the burnt taste makes it seem stronger. But for many Starbucks is like the gateway drug to real coffee. Then there are the other luxuries such as wifi, food, nice couch's etc. Its a convinient place to meet and chat with friends without having to pay for dinner. In Seattle its the most convinient place to warm up and get out of the rain. There certainly are better places to go for coffee but no other place offers all those conviniences on every corner. My company has Starbucks machines on every floor of every building and its free. I'm certainly not going to drive across town to a better place.
Yes, calling someone "macho" for wearing a shirt which expresses his interests demonstrates an stunning logical sophistication. Good for you!
I have studied formal logic and discrete math. They were may favorite classes, actually.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
It sounds to me like you are an annoying guy who is obsessed with coffee that works with a guy who bitches about nerds on the Internet, but instead of complaining to him about it, you bitch on the Internet about machismo...
And Windows is only free if your time, your money, and your freedom are worthless.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Also from http://tinyurl.com/yzs4hk :
And...
http://www.ethrev.com/2006/nov/11212006_oxfam_vs_
"The other white meat" campaign killed good off pig in America. Less fat means less flavor.
If I wanted chicken I would eat chicken. Give me back my fatty pigs you bastards.
hi mom
and dad
The evil foreign investement rears its ugly head again.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... could have said that.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Honestly, what the fuck do you want:
The commercial model in which you make shops in which your costumer know what they get has proven successful. Give me a good commercial reason for a big chain not to use that model of making bussiness.
The horror of horrors! A commercial entity wanting to attract more costumers by means of loyalty schemes. The criminals.
I will let pass the asinine comment regarding diversity. Les just say that saying apples are bad because oranges have vitamin C is an equally idiotic statement.
A coffee shop trying to be an "artistic venue" has more serious problems than Starbucks' competition. If they are been oblitarated by Starbucks then either their coffee is not that good, the "art" is crap or both.
Coffee is not adictive, neither is caffeine, the active substance found on the drink. People drinking too much of the stuff may have unpleasent reactions when they stop it cold for a couple of days, but their body will not crave the thing and they will not rob you to get their fix. Finally everybody charges what the market bears. You do when you get a job, or are you going to tell us you look for the job that pays you the least?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... in the points you raised originally.
You are not advocating ethics, you are advocating self sacrifice and self immolation.
Those are very different things.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.