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."
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?
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
"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.
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!!!
The fairest trade system in the history of man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
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?
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
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.
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.
Starbucks is certainly quite successful at projecting an image of social responsiblity, yes - so much so that uninformed people like you believe that they created the fair trade movement, when actually Fair Trade is a decades old idea and Starbucks use of a tiny amout of Fair Trade coffee is just greenwash.
While Starbucks is certainly not the Pure Concentrated Evil of, say, a Halliburton or a Monsanto, neither are they the angels that their PR department would like you to believe. That they seem to treat their direct employees fairly well, is no indication of what ethics apply (or don't apply) to their deals with suppliers.
Uh huh. So rather than owning one's own small business, being a successful entrepreneur, the new American dream is to work for a national franchise, so that you can get health insurance. How incredibly fscking sad is that?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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.'"
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)
Because 99% of their customers don't give a shit. They want a cup of coffee. Not a fine dining experience. They don't know the difference between roasts, what a clinker is, or what the date on a roast means (nor do I for that matter- is it newer is better, or is it a wine thing where older is?). Hell, a lot of them don't really know what the difference between a mocha and a latte is. They just want a cup of Joe at a known quality level. Maybe a quick snack too. Thats what Starbucks provides. Its pretty much like McDonalds- you don't go there for a great burger, you go there for food that you can predict how bad it will be.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Well, it's simple really. The reason for the over-roasted beans at Starbucks (which causes those of us who like the taste of straight coffee and espresso to cringe) is the fact that Starbucks doesn't sell coffee. They sell coffee flavored drinks. Starbucks is responsible for the latte craze after all. Most all of their products contain so many other flavorings , dairy and sugar that the coffee has to be stronger or you wouldn't taste it. If this seems unrealistic, just go to a Starbucks and order black coffee or straight espresso. The looks the employees and other customers give you are priceless. They became a nationally known name by selling frapachinos, not coffee.
Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
Absolutely; as someone who savors a good shot of espresso, maybe with a dollop of foam if I'm feeling fancy, Starbucks is at best adequate. At least I can get espresso there, the only such supplier in most towns sadly, but their operations are not setup to serve great coffee, it's to serve 1200 calorie milk shakes disguised as "coffee drinks". Hell, in many of the Starbucks I stop in on my travels the staff calls it "expresso".
Still, as another poster said, it's the McD's of coffee; you go there for the consistent experience - and the wifi - not the quality. The quality isn't nearly as *bad* as McDonalds, but it's not nearly as good as many of the places I used to go, before they folded trying to compete with Starbucks. And I agree with others - they are a remarkably socially conscious big business, they treat employees well, they are fairly locally active, and I have no problem with their success.
So, if the coffee sucks, it's because they like it that way
Actually, a lot of people who constantly go to Starbucks do it because it's the cool thing to do. They do it because it's what everyone else is doing since they don't want to be left out. Starbucks is more about "brand" than coffee anymore.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Which would you rather work for? And if you say the local roaster, you clearly have never had an ambulance ride and multiple-day stay in the hospital. Neither have I, but I know what they cost.
There is no one "cost" to know; the screwed up American health system is notorious for charging different prices depending on who you are and whether you have employer-provided health insurance (cheapest price), health insurance you paid for yourself (ripoff prices), or no health insurance (extortion). Generally, the more you're hurting for money, the more zeroes they append to your bill.
The local roaster will also pay a much higher premium than Starbucks would have to pay for the same coverage. And if you buy health insurance yourself, instead of getting it from your employer, you run a much higher risk of having your coverage retroactively cancelled if you get sick.
But remember, best health care system in the world.
The article you linked just says that Starbucks only buys a small amount of FairTrade coffee. But it says nothing about how much fairly traded coffee they buy. These are two different concepts. FairTrade is a trademark for a certification process. If something is labeled you can be assured that it is fairly traded, but if something is not labeled FairTrade you cannot be sure of the opposite.
Starbucks is a sufficient large buyer to make it interesting to implement their own fair trading. And there may be good reasons for this, e.g. the overhead of the FairTrade process. In the YouTube video they claim that they often pay even more than FairTrade, and this seems completely possible since they could optimize logistics in a way that selling FairTrade coffee to consumers wouldn't allow.
So the complaint in the linked article is that the money Starbucks spends on coffee is not run through the FairTrade organization, not that the coffee is not traded fairly. Somehow they forgot to make this more obvious.
Should any fairly traded product be bought from FairTrade? I don't think so. Competition does not only lower prices, it also increases efficiency (thereby allowing lowering the prices). If Starbucks can pay the coffee farmers more than FairTrade due to their better process, I welcome this, because it will increase the consumption of fairly traded coffee in a significant way, while this might not happen if the price difference stays the same as it is today possibly due to inefficiencies in the FairTrade process.
I don't know these things, I have no numbers about how much Starbucks pays coffee farmers etc. But I have the ability to distinguish between a justified criticism and someone trying to defend their monopoly by calling someone else unethical.
memomo: free web based language trainer DE-EN-ES-FR-IT
Last I looked my local high street wasn't lined with 'local roasteries'. I can't speak for America, but in Britain before Starbucks all we had were grotty little cafes serving vile tea and coffee alongside greasy bacon sandwiches.
But... to be back on topic... I too was of the opinion that Starbucks was a 'good' company, and it somewhat baffles me why organizations like Oxfam pick on them when there are truly BAD companies doing BAD things that they should be spending their time on.
I think to some organizations, any global corporation is "bad" - there's no rationality behind it, and no amount of social responsibility will be enough to satisfy them, even if the corporation in question is giving a positive benefit to the world. Starbucks' perfectly legitimate disagreement with Ethiopian farmers is more than enough "justification" for people who are not being entirely rational to start protesting.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.