

Starbucks (and Sameness) - cwan
http://mattmaroon.com/2009/12/01/starbucks/

======
natrius
I think it's a bit presumptive to write off the appeal of locally-owned
businesses. Granted, it's easy and attractive to do since some people are so
ridiculous about it. (Here in Austin, a neighborhood sued to try to stop a
Walmart from coming in. They lost, but the process got delayed long enough for
the recession to hit, so now an uglier, less-pedestrian friendly Walmart will
be built than what was proposed. Progress.)

There is something palpably different when you're buying something directly
from the owner of a business, or at least when the owner isn't too far removed
for you to interact with them every once in a while. There's a Mediterranean
restaurant I frequent that's run by three generations of a family, and
something just feels different when I go there beyond just the quality of the
food, which is amazing on its own. Perhaps they're just good at being
friendly. I think it's more of a side-effect of properly aligned incentives.
The better of an experience they create, the more money they make, and with a
stronger, more positive correlation than a waiter has with tips.

Humans are social creatures. There might appear to be an equivalence between
transactions with Starbucks and your local independent coffee shop, but
there's more going on than just a transaction. It's an experience.

(Then there's the whole argument for keeping money circulating within your
local economy, but that seems like it'd have the same problems as
protectionism if it became a popular movement.)

~~~
olefoo
Yes, there's a distinct pleasure in doing business with someone who is a part
of your tribe, notional as that tribe may be.

~~~
grandalf
i'm sure most KKK members feel that way!

(incidentally, I don't care about anything other than the quality of the
coffee and chairs)

~~~
cpach
How about s/tribe/community/ ?

~~~
grandalf
Slightly less offensive, but similar...

------
lmkg
If you want a cup of approximately coffee-shaped liquid in the morning,
Starbucks is great because it's the same coffee anywhere. It's not inspiring,
but it's nearly always edible. For a very large number of people who drink
coffee, this is the goal and starbucks delivers, anywhere, anytime.

If you want a coffee shop experience, with young bohemian college students or
starving artists or something, starbucks tends not to deliver. Being
standardized lends an air of inauthenticity, and depending on what you're
looking for it's a bit too busy what with everyone ordering coffee all the
time so they can get through the day. There's usually some people on a laptop,
and there are a few that have managed to become havens to the right type of
people, but it's less "coffee shop" and more "a shop that sells coffee."

So basically, starbucks is servicing a niche market. Fortunately for them,
it's a large niche, and they've self-selected for high-functioning addicts so
the business model is sustainable.

~~~
pp
> If you want a cup of approximately coffee-shaped liquid in the morning,
> Starbucks is great because it's the same coffee anywhere.

Which really is the point of branding in the first place.

------
nudist
At one point, Starbucks was a local coffee shop. One of the reasons it was
successful was because it made its drinks unique-- it puts a tiny amount of
caramel into Mochas, which give them a distinct taste that people feel they
can't find anywhere else.

The coffee is only just decent, but 99% of people don't know or care about
that. Most people wouldn't know what good coffee tastes like. They assume --
and, through the power of placebo, taste -- the coffee is bad because of the
undertones about Starbucks in society.

I don't think this is about coffee or brands directly. This is about
perception. The perception of localness is what Starbucks was hypothesizing to
be powerful. They either failed in their experiment (likely by mentioning that
it was inspired by Starbucks) or discovered their hypothesis was incorrect.

~~~
rms
It also helps that Starbucks coffee is particularly high in caffeine.

------
asher
I haven't seen any real data. I think that Starbucks has the data, and knows
to a tenth of a percent how many people would prefer an independent shop, all
other factors being equal.

It also seems that the appeal of the independent shop varies by location.
Certain demographics will value authenticity, local ownership and funkiness.

We should beware the temptation to generalize from our own preferences, or
from those of our friends.

From personal observation, when a Starbucks is near an indie shop, they are
usually doing about the same volume of transactions. It may be 65/35 or 35/65,
but I haven't seen 90/10.

Has anyone?

------
vinhboy
I go to starbucks because they usually have a clean restroom.

~~~
Tichy
Funny, that used to be the reason to go to McDonalds.

~~~
chrischen
That's the reason you go to McDonald's, KFC's, and Pizza Huts in China.
They're the fanciest and cleanest restaurants around.

------
Flankk
I find it interesting that Starbucks would want to throw away their branding
and open up coffee shops under a generic name.

That said, this is a negative and contentless rant. Blue jeans are very
practical in all seasons. It's not fair to compare a fashion trend to a
franchise rebranding.

~~~
teej
I didn't see anything that said they were operating under a different name -
only the interior decor was different and they abstained from putting the logo
outside.

~~~
scott_s
From the Reuters article:

 _Apparently the experiment isn’t working. A former Starbucks insider said
that Seattle’s 15th Ave. Coffee and Tea – the first of the new not Starbucks
stores (its website, by the way, is called www.streetlevelcoffee.com) – is
doing only a third of the business of the regular green-logoed Starbucks store
that used be at that site._

------
RK
The comedy bit Matt mentions is by Lewis Black talking about the street in
Houston with two Starbucks across from each other.

It now has three (sort of):

[http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2009_479001...](http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2009_4790013)

