Quantcast

Empire never had delusions of Soul!

starbuckscrown.jpg Bill Virgin, writing in last Thursday's P-I Business section, shed light on memo sent out by Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz (courtesy here of Starbucks Gossip). Since then, news of the memo has traveled the internet a few times over. On the one hand, the wiseacre in us says, "you made decisions to expand from 1,000 to 13,000 stores and nobody thought about the dilution and commoditization of the experience???" Please. Even at 1,000 stores, a corporation is certainly relying quite heavily on commoditization, even if at regional scale. Exactly how does one grow that much, world-wide, without branding, commodifying, marketing, and selling (out?) the original experience? We'll even argue that that scale of growth requires the "sterile" and "cookie-cutter" nature that Schultz bemoans.

In our mobile culture, global expansion on Starbucks' scale requires one requisite ingredient: standardization of product. Ask Pizza Hut. The majority of people stopping at a travel plaza on the Indiana Toll Road, for example, don't get Starbucks because they want some mythical Starbucks experience. Rather, they get it because it is a known quantity among other coffee shops of unknown quality. They will settle for Starbucks' industrially-controlled mocha rather than take the chance that the underpaid teenager at the place next door might make a good espresso. Such is the price of global domination, Mr. Schultz: one frequently trades soul for territory. Charm and authenticity cannot be forced into a new location just by hanging your sign above the door.

We have doubts about the original assertion that Starbucks had any soul to begin with. We know, of course, that that statement is highly subjective and depends on how one defines soul. We are thinking back to our non-Northwestern upbringing and point-of-view when we recall our first impressions of Starbucks' entrance into our humble burg. In that case, the "Starbucks experience" was entirely equated with high-priced, status coffee. It was about image rather than coffee; it was more about gallivanting about the streets showing off your Starbucks cup than about the coffee shop as a neighborhood place and destination. More importantly, Starbucks' appearance was the harbinger of impending gentrification of the neighborhood. We knew that we likely could no longer afford rent in that neighborhood. Finally, the Starbucks experience was exactly an issue of cookie-cutter style. If one defines "soul" as standardized coffee served by someone wearing that same green apron in a shop filled with the same dark-stained wood, tiny bistro tables, and prohibitively priced wi-fi, then we readily concede Starbucks had soul at one point.

Listen, there may not be anything wrong with lacking soul. Empire lived with this fact for centuries as it it standardized the globe. Certainly, in our post-colonial times, such imperialist thinking is on the outs but, like it or not, you have chosen the path of imperialism. Today, empire is built by the blotted end of a pen signing a checkbook rather than by a sword drawing blood. Did the Brits give a blink about establishing pompous aristocracy and, eventually, a cookie-cutter parliamentary system the world over? Buck up, little emperor! Know thyself, Starbucks, and embrace your role as the pre-eminent global emperor of upscale coffee reproduced --in burnt excessively roasted and stifling exactitude-- in any location thanks to standard, mechanical processes. The days of soul are over, friend, now there is only the crushing of soul! There is no shame in it; it is merely the nature of empire.

Surely, like all good cogs, we'll still patronize you on the Pennsylvania Turnpike when we crave something resembling a mocha. But please do not insult us with claims that any single one of your chain of over 13,000 shops had any individual charm to begin with.

Poor Mr. Schultz. Perhaps he is still smarting from the loss of his bungled civic stewardship of the Sonics/Storm. Well, cheer up, old bean! The other day, our coworker sent us a link to a little motivational video that just might perk up your flagging spirits. Enjoy!

Contact the author of this article or email tips@seattlest.com with further questions, comments or tips.

Comments [rss]

  • swag

    Starbucks has a lot of internal variance among cafés -- for better or worse. At some level, Starbucks has done a lot to live up to the promise of the same quality of coffee and experience at every location - the "Pizza Hut" model as it were. But if that's what they are trying to achieve, they've actually failed at that.



    Sure, you could argue that some of their locations have better design and character than others. But the first thing they should be able to do is at least get the coffee down consistently. Even if it is of questionable quality, the product should be consistent: the goal of any mega-sized, fast-food style chain. Yet in SF proper, for example, their coffee quality is all over the map, despite using the same equipment, bean stocks, training, etc:



    http://www.coffeeratings.com/chain-view.php?chainId=75

    (these are my personal reviews from objective criteria I've applied to 500 other cafés in the SF area)



    So if we're going to talk about Starbucks selling their soul for uniformity, they are not even close to succeeding on that front yet.

  • Steve M

    The Wall Street Journal called up Starbucks and a spokesperson for the company confirmed that the memo was real.

  • Jeremy M. Barker

    Firstly, does anyone have any confirmation that memo was real? I thought it was pretty fake. Secondly, I don't think it's an issue of chain-store=bad, indie=good. There was a great article in the NY Times Sunday on how rabid lefties get over coffee and perceived-corporate evil (see: "Coffee Puts Laid Back Town on Edge," 3/4).



    Secondly, the issue with Starbucks, as anyone could tell you, is that at a certain point, the growth potential in new stores started declining. In many suburban areas, you can already see more than one Starbucks in the same shopping center. The penetration is deep, but then you run into the same problem McDonalds did years ago: Once you reshape the American conciousness to accept your product, and you become the iconic purveyor of it, you become a bloated behemoth with a huge market share just waiting to be torn down.



    By the 90s, McDonald's was under attack from both sides: higher-priced fast food chains were offering ostensibly better food, while lower-cost alternative with $.99 menus were underpricing them. In a growth industry they largely created, they had nowhere to go but down. They remain a huge corporation, of course, but their market share is constantly under attack.



    The same is true of Starbucks. Numerous projects meant to create new streams of revenue failed. Starbucks.com used to sell furniture, and the company toyed with the idea of buying Ethan Allen, apparently deluded into thinking coffee drinkers wanted the coffee settings to match over-priced reproductions of Hemingway's parlor furniture. Then there was their dismal magazine that folded after two issues (does anyone even remember what it was called?). Now they've finally hit gold with their music, but that stems more from lables' desire to find no record sales outlets than any originality on Starbucks' part. As record stores decline, lables want new places to sell. Starbucks reaps some profits while simultaneously record sales hit new record lows each month.



    So even if the memo is real, what it's acknowledging is that the company is in a bad spot--with market share its biggest prize, it's in danger not from indie coffeehouses but from smalled chains. Once upon a time, Coffee People was the only real Starbucks alternative in many (suburban) places. Now a variety of regional chains threaten Starbucks' strangehold on the industry. If the memo is real at all, it's a pointed decision to try to compete with new chains offering a different atmosphere. Starbucks may or may not have once had that atmosphere, but no matter how crowd-pleasing everyone may find the memo (which only adds to apocryphal suspicions), if it is true, it's another inept, top-down attempt to demand a corporate behemoth behave differently to attract customers, and it's about as believable as Jet Blue's lame "passenger's bill of rights."

  • EC

    I absolutely beg to differ. Certainly, there are lots of Starbucks locations that lack charm of any kind. That said, there are also locations that do. In fact, a few Seattle-area locations are decidedly more comfortable and enjoyable than their Indie counterparts that do indeed provide superior coffee. It is true in Seattle that your chances of getting an excellent latte at a non-Starbucks location are huge; coffee is exactly what this city does best. But this certainly is not the case everywhere. I currently reside in a tiny town in the South in which we have one cute, acceptable coffee shop and one godawful, horribly uncomfortable coffee shop. It's no wonder that when we all venture to civilization we head straight for Starbucks. Yes, it's reliable. And you know what? Reliable isn't bad. And outside of the city of dimly lit, mostly hospitible independent coffee shops, it never disappoints in any aspect of the experience. As for pricing, few coffee shops offer anything cheaper than Starbucks; if you're going to shell out $4 for a very small amount of coffe, don't you want to know what you're getting? The only reason we frequent our favorite independent stores in Seattle is that we also know we're going to have a reliably positive experience. It may not be mass produced, but after our first tentative venture inside, we come back because we expect it to be a similar (good) experience every time.

  • David F.

    That video hurt me. I hope you are right when you say that "imperialist thinking is on the outs." It has seemed resurgent since 2001.

blog comments powered by Disqus

send a tip

tips@seattlest.com