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."
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?
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
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.
"Libertarian" == "I failed PoliSci".
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
I was under the impression McDonald's only has one kind. Plus, their sizes are in English, and no one likes that.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it