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?
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.
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
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?
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.'"
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.
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.'"
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)
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.