Starbucks - Evil or Eviller? And why?

Remove all ads!

Starbucks was never about the cofee, but rather about the cultural phenomenon. It didn't matter if the coffee sucked (I'll take your word for it, as a Mormon, I don't drink coffee). What mattered was that you were seen drinking "gourmet" coffee. What mattered is that you kept up your smug appearances and yuppie lifestyle.

They weren't selling coffee, they were selling pride. And when the economy falters, pride is something you have to quit buying first...

They had to charge an obscene amount of money for their cheap coffee because it must be hard to drink it with your head that far up your @$$...

 

I don't think Starbucks is evil, just useless to me, since I almost never drink coffee.

 

You guys don't drink coffee cause you're Mormons? I can't wait to hear what that's about.

 

It's part of the Word of Wisdom. We Mo-folk are discouraged from putting impurities into our bodies, which means no alcohol or stimulants, so that pretty much covers all caffeinated beverages. The personal prohibition on caffeine isn't nearly as commonly adhered to as the alcohol one, but it's still pretty standard. It's essentially a health code, but some take it more seriously than others, as its adherence is a prerequisite for temple access.

Just so this topic doesn't turn into an "ain't Mormons wacky?" thread, here's a relevant article so we can all move on.

On topic: Starbucks is not evil, they're just one damn savvy business. They attempt to give back to the community more, and treat their employees better, than most companies in their league, especially in the fast food category. I love their coffee, hate their pretentiousness (grande? Venti? Really?), and think they're generally overpriced. But I worked at a Starbucks for about a year and I've gotta say, I quite enjoyed it all things considered. That we see so many Starbucks all over the place is a result of demand for their product. Their PR strategy is and always has been top notch.

 

Starbucks make some damn fine coffee and that's all that matters.

 

Yes, let's get back to the "serious" topic of Starbuck's being "evil."

 

Starbucks is evil because Howard Schulz sold the NBA franchise formerly known as the Seattle SuperSonics to a carpet bagging Okie.

 

OK, now two people have mentioned that Starbucks have drive throughs. I've seen dozens of them in Pennsylvania, Maryland and New Jersey, and I have yet to see one with a drive through. Of course, I've also never seen a Starbucks as a store all by itself (which is kind of necessary for it to have a drive through). They have all been parts of malls, supermarkets, airports, turnpike rest stops, or other businesses. I've never seen a Starbucks as a store unto itself, so maybe that's why they never had drive throughs.

I still don't get why people are calling Starbucks "evil" though (with the exception of ChickenIsGood - that's a valid excuse). If you don't like their coffee go to one of hundreds of other places near where you live that serves coffee more to your liking. Or heck, invest $20 in a coffee maker and brew your own in the morning - then you can get any kind of coffee you want!

 

Is Starbucks a "strangler" company? In other words, do they bully out the competition and thus appear to be on the way to a monopoly on the high end coffee market? If so then I suppose you could call them "evil", though I would say the word is a little harsh.

Since I don't drink coffee I cannot comment on the quality of their product as compared to other places, but in terms of being pretentious twerps I think they rate high -- it's just coffee for pity's sake! Get over yourselves. Also, are they the ones who don't call their coffees "small, medium, large" but rather "large, venti and grande venti" or something like that? If so, on that basis alone I would call them evil -- I hate that self-absorbed, ridiculous posturing.

 

LKD,
Starbucks, high end?! I object!

In Germany Starbuck's greatest competitor is McDonalds with their new McCafé concept, which also spreads quite aggressively (an evil in the making?).

Oh, no. I didn't say they are evil because they are closing 600 shops. Rather I asked whether that, considering Starbucks' bad coffee and that they are evil, can be seen as a good thing for the coffeesphere.

 

Are you foolishly suggesting that it isn't evil to be American?

Anyway, I like Starbucks coffee. The $5.00 myth is just that. If you want one of their blended drinks, then yes - it'll cost you. But here, regular coffee ranges from $1.70 for a "tall" (i.e. small ) to about $2.25 for the big one. But in fairness, their smallest is still pretty big (compared to other coffee places).

 

Well, it IS one of Ragusa's threads, isn't it?

 

I felt I owed it those whose expectations I otherwise wouldn't meet.

 

But why would you go to Starbucks if you wanted a regular coffee? It's the equivalent of going to McDonalds when you're in the mood for a salad. Just like the reason McDonalds serves salads is to offer a healthier alternative when you're in a group and everyone else wants a burger, SBs offers regular coffee for when you're in a group and one person doesn't like flavored coffee. While I do not frequent SBs, I have never seen anyone order a regular coffee there.

 

Well, OK, but that's a bit of a different arguement. To me, coffee and blended/specialty coffee are two different things. Are you saying that you would never pay for a cup of "regular" coffee? If not, then I can see why you might object to paying $1.70 for it at Starbucks (or $1.25 somewhere else). Otherwise, we're (or at least I'm) really talking about the price difference for regular coffee between Starbucks and somewhere else, which might amount to a whopping $0.25 - $0.50.

I'm not sure, but I assume the cost difference (at least as a percentage) between SB and elsewhere for blended coffees is somewhat similar.

Edit: And yes, people do buy regular coffee from Starbucks.

 

Just as an aside, here in Canada I don't think that Starbucks has the presence that it does in the US -- here the biggest retailer for coffee is Tim Hortons -- there's practically one on every corner. Apparently the coffee is quite good (I wouldn't know) and for a while there was an urban myth going around that Tim Hortons put nicotine in their coffee to get people addicted to it.

 

Well, why I personally think all the people calling Starbucks "Evil" and their coffee "rubbish" are idiots/tasteless I wont delve into name calling. Personally I love Starbucks coffee, usually I just order a Latte, but occasionally I order a Mocha, both are done to perfection. Also, up here, they may be a little bit more expensive than getting coffee from some little restaurant/doughnut stand or something, but they aren't THAT expensive and you pay for the quality. Also my friend worked for Starbucks for 4 years and they are brilliant employers.

 

The Starbucks in Boulevard des Capucines (near the opera) in Paris is exquisitely evil:

http://idata.nomao.com/1/c/9/f/d/b/5/95834070c67aff62937030afe3/110208/110209.jpg

http://idata.nomao.com/1/c/9/f/d/b/5/95834070c67aff62937030afe3/110208/110210.jpg