Want a fair trade cappuccino at Starbucks?
No, can’t do. BUT! Did you know that you can get a cheaper, tastier cappuccino just by asking for it?
That’s what Tim Harford reports, over at Slate: “The short cappuccino has the same amount of espresso as the 12-ounce tall, meaning a bolder coffee taste, and also a better one…. This secret cappuccino is cheaper, too—at my local Starbucks, $2.35 instead of $2.65.”
But look on the Starbucks menu, and you’ll see that this cheaper, tastier cappuccino suffers the same fate as fair trade coffee — The item’s unlisted.
Why not advertise this foamy delicacy? Harford writes: “The official line from Starbucks is that there is no room on the menu board, although this doesn’t explain why the short cappuccino is also unmentioned on the comprehensive Starbucks Web site, nor why the baristas will serve you in a whisper rather than the usual practice of singing your order to the heavens.”
Harford says the mini-capp remains a secret, cuz Starbucks knows most people will willingly pay the extra 30 cents or so — as long as they don’t know they can get it cheaper. Since a cappuccino, regardless of size, takes about the same time to make, Starbucks scrapes in additional dimes by “making the cheap product invisible.”
Meaning: to get this lil cappuccino or a cup of fair trade coffee, you have to 1. hear about it from a third source, i.e. Slate or green LA girl, and 2. specifically ask for it.
The difference between the mini-capp and fair trade? Fair trade activists have made enough noise that Starbucks posts info about its “commitment to fair trade” all over the CSR portion of their website, not to mention their CSR annual reports. Starbucks gets lots of green creds for said commitment — without making it any easier for the customer to get a cup of fair trade, much less find out that it’s avaliable, at its stores.
And while Harford sounds a lil peeved that his fave cappuccino isn’t listed on the Starbucks menu, he seems to have had no trouble getting it when he asked for it. No blank stares, no attempts to overcharge, no big scenes involving 2-4 employees, no outright refusals — none of the embarrasing difficulties encountered by our Challengers.
[top illustration by Mark Alan Stamaty at Slate]
OK, I’ve kind of skewed things by going in almost daily and asking for Cafe Estima. And this is a small town, so people remember that kind of thing. And my Starbucks has been out of Cafe Estima for about forever. So when I walked in this morning, with great fanfare, they announced that the Cafe Estima is in, they were brewing it, AND they only charged me for a small one but gave me a big one. And they have a big display of bulk Cafe Estima that says “fair trade” in big letters. SO there you are. I was beginning to think that they hadn’t really ordered it at all, but I guess they had.
Comment by Andrea — January 7, 2006 @ 9:30 am
I saw this Slate article on Starbucksgossip.com with the following comment:
The important thing to remember here is that the Starbbucks sizes used to be short, tall, and grande. Customers demanded a larger size, and the Venti (Italian for 20) was born. We did at one time have all four sizes on the menu, but it became confusing for customers, and a pain in the ass to put up all the tiny price menu chips that we used to have to use back then instead of poster-style inserts. So, the short came off the menu. It’s always available and certainly no secret. The only reason it’s not offered anymore is that customers demanded the larger size, not because Starbucks was trying to hide a cheaper size. People will try to think up any stupid thing to bash the Buck.
Posted by: Fat Little Pug | Jan 6, 2006 8:28:36 PM
Comment by james — January 7, 2006 @ 4:02 pm
Hey James — Thanks for the note. Just checked out the page — really interesting, cuz many commenters profess to work at Starbucks and provide lots of inside info.
The comments run the gamut, from managers saying that the short’s really popular but their cash register only lets them ring up short sizes for a few select drinks, to others saying that the venti’s the most popular size and the short the least popular — thus it’s not on the menu… Who knows? I’m guessing customer preferences depend on location — which brings me back to being a lil peeved at the whole one-size-fits-all uniformity of Starbucks stores…
Comment by Siel — January 7, 2006 @ 4:24 pm
Who are these people demanding the super-huge sized coffees? They must be TOTALLY WIRED all the time! The smallest one is easily big enough for me.
Comment by beev — January 8, 2006 @ 8:00 am
Rofl! Hey beev, been to a gas station convenience store lately? The American obsession with “bigger is better” is easy to see . . . 64 Oz soft drink cups are just the start . . . grin . . Also, although a grande was big enough, I now order a venti drip. Since I’ll drink cold coffee I nurse that 20 oz-er from about 8:00 AM ’till noon. . .
R.
Comment by Roger, Gone Green — January 8, 2006 @ 8:59 am
beev is in the UK. I’m guessing there’s less supersizing going on over there?
Comment by Siel — January 8, 2006 @ 11:50 am
I call the 64oz. cups “bladder busters”. ;-)
Chris
http://amateureconblog.blogspot.com/
Comment by Chris Meisenzahl — January 10, 2006 @ 4:24 pm
Maybe one can make an argument for these bladder busters, considering this article?
Still, this would only go for a small population of women…
Comment by Siel — January 11, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
I’ve been asking for, and getting, small cappuccino and latte since before venti bumped short off the menu at *bux. Some of my friends who disovered *bucks after short was off the menu, didn’t know about its existence for a long time.
If it is true that *bux isn’t hiding the cheaper size but is only doing so for it is concerned about confusing its patrons with too many sizes, a simple also available in short or some such message on the menu would clearly be useful to folks who end up paying more for tall although short could give them their dose of caffeine.
Comment by garam chai — January 11, 2006 @ 11:18 pm
Please ignore the typo in my previous comment. I meant *bucks…not *bux although to some *bucks or *$$ or *bux means the same.
Comment by garam chai — January 11, 2006 @ 11:21 pm