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."
...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?
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
You've just insulted 95% of my Bladder.
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
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.'"
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.
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.
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....
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.'"
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)
Which begs the question, is Coke really in the big-bad-bin? This is the first I've heard of it. I mean, I've heard murmurs about unfair practices but nothing really big.
It also suggests the question, how much of the proceeds from each cup of McDonalds "coffee" goes to the farmer?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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)
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
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.
What did they bungle? If you just watched the two videos you have no idea who is telling the truth. But the Guardian published a story confirming Oxfam's position.
Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
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.
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.
Well unfortunately, Coke really does deserve to be in the bad corner.
Do some digging on Coke in India (especially Kerala), and find out just how much damage they've done. Fertile ground has been turned into parched earth, groundwater has been contaminated across the country, and there's some question about the incidence of birth defects near the bottling plants. Unfortunately, it's far enough away from the Western World(tm), and also India's special interest groups tend to stray farther from the truth than they would here, so it's not the debacle it should be.
As an aside, Pepsi is right up there in bad behaviour as well. Both companies were temporarily banned from production in Kerala, in August of 2006, but the ban was overturned.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban