So maybe you’re more forgiving of large corps than I am. After all, Nestle and P&G are the REAL assholes. Why bug Starbucks? At least they admitted they messed up. I mean, all things considered, isn’t Starbucks a “good” company?
The thing is, I have other concerns about Starbucks too — concerns just as important to me as the fair trade issue.
The main one: Globalization.
I realize the term globalization can be interpreted variously, but here, I mean the kind of globalization that makes Singapore look exactly like LA.
It’s something I asked Major of Starbucks about, when I first met him. How does he — as someone who purports to care about corporate social responsibility — feel about the fact that Starbucks’ cookie cutter stores are now everywhere?
Major said that Starbucks is simply providing people what they want. To which I answered — What about the lil coffee shops that get shut out due to Starbucks?
Major argued that the coffee shops that have a good product and marketing strategy do NOT go out of business even if Starbucks opens up on their block. I have no stats on this, so I deferred that argument.
Instead, I asked: What about the coffee shops that’re struggling to open, but get outbid by Starbucks for retail space?
Major’s answer: “We are very good at getting retail space.”
There’s no question that indie coffee shops get shut out cuz of Starbucks. Take Cafe Evoke in Bozeman, Montana, for ex. Their lease was a done deal, till Starbucks showed interest. Jason, the Evoker-to-be, reported: “When we negotiated this lease several weeks ago, we agreed on a price that was at our upper limits. Because this company will still be trying to get Starbucks if we sign the lease without exclusivity, it is not going to work for Cafe Evoke.”
Evoke’s not alone. In Riverside, California, a cafe owner writes: “We have been approached by developers who … have also offered the unit to Starbucks but would like to see a small business go in before a big box fast food chain like the *bucks. But, the renovation cost as well as the rent increase, make it a very difficult move to fathom…. Our business would need to increase 5 times over in order for us to scrape by. Not plausible.”
Major’s thoughts on such stories? “This is an American thing, not a Starbucks thing.”
Perhaps — If one defines America by the ubiquity of companies like McDonalds and Taco Bell — Both of which are seemingly inescapable.
Sure, other asshole companies are tarnishing America’s image all over the world. But Starbucks’ joining in only makes the mermaid a part of the problem, a now-bigger problem, with Starbucks doing likewise.
I think that Starbucks needs to take some responsibility, as a huge, international company, for the part it takes in shaping what America is, and what other countries think of when they think of America.
How does Starbucks get its way everywhere? More on that tomorrow.
Update, 1/15/06: A Starbucked world II, here.
Naomi Klein writes in No Logo about Starbuck’s clustering marketing strategy, which she equates to being just as bad as the big box chains.
How on earth is this responsible, sustainable marketing? It’s causing an obvious and well-deserved backlash.
Comment by Ivan Storck — January 14, 2006 @ 1:06 pm
I was in the Starbucks in Dublin city center and I noticed someone has written “Mono Culture” on the glass in the door. I also overheard some staff talking before Christmas and they said the locks “were stuck” that morning and a locksmith had to be called to open the shop.
It would appear that someone is targeting Starbucks in a way McDonalds, Burger King and the other American chains dont apear to have been targeted.
It is interesting that in Ireland Starbucks represents big American business. It is also ironic that someone would target an American business when you consider how much Ireland depends on America, and how in many ways our “Celtic Tiger” economy is far more American than European.
Comment by Declan — January 14, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
We TOTALLY lost out great locally-owned coffee shops when Starbucks came in. It was a huge loss to me; that’s where I hung out when I had a few spare minutes :( My favorite had a good business plan for the time where there were only other coffee shops owned by real people. When a corporation came in, he couldn’t compete. One example was the declining-balance cards that Starbucks has -and I use. Just getting that technology would have cost him a huge amount of money. But it’s such a convenience for people, that it really would have been necessary. And that’s just one example. I’m STILL bummed about it.
Comment by Andrea — January 14, 2006 @ 4:53 pm
Someone inevitably brings up this question whenever I’m bitching about the homogenization of American and global cultures. And I have to concede that consumers have to share some of the blame, if only because they make themselves suckers for a clever marketing campaign.
The fact is, though, many chains, and especially Starbucks, don’t actually have a superior product. Most indie coffee bars, I’ve found, are run by serious coffee geeks who put a lot of thought and research into their drinks. Obviously they want and need to make a profit, but they also take pride in producing the quality of coffee that they themselves would prefer to drink.
I’m sure such people exist within Starbucks as well. But at the level of the individual shop, well, Starbucks offers a decent part-time job for a lot of impoverished students who don’t necessarily have a passion for the intricate details of pulling a shot of espresso. I can’t count the number of times I’ve overheard a Starbucks barrista casually admit to not drinking coffee.
The only conclusions I’ve come to as to why Starbucks continues to outcompete the independents have to do with clever marketing, shedloads of capital, and the economies of scale enjoyed by larger companies. It certainly has nothing to do with the quality of their drinks.
Anyhow, looking forward to tomorrow’s entry …
Comment by Brian — January 14, 2006 @ 6:39 pm
themediaslut would like to share her view all the way from the east..
themediaslut thinks most Singaporeans are more than happy for their Starbucks to like LA and are willing to pay the price for it.
If one can’t go to LA, why can’t LA come to Singapore and let the people experience a taste of America for a price of SGD5.00?
Most of the Starbucks here are in the department stores and in the city area where the rent prices are already too high for smaller coffee shops.
On the other hand, although rents in the neighbourhood shops are low, themediaslut doesn’t expect Starbucks to open one there as the demand for their coffee would be low…
Still, most Singaporeans justifying themselves going to Starbucks as a treat. They would rather go to local coffee shops for a cup of SDG1.00 coffee or less everyday.
On the other hand, the expats here would go to Starbucks as a norm and visit the local coffee shop as a treat.
Comment by themediaslut — January 15, 2006 @ 8:50 am
The “problem”[1] is not so much with Starbucks as with the freehold owners. They will take a lower rent from a large, cash rich, company such as Starbucks over some local start up. From a medium term cashflow perspective it pays off; there is far more chance that Starbucks will still be there paying rent in 12 months time.
Short of subsidizing property owners to take a risk on start ups and local concerns, there’s not much that can be done. And I think we start entering rather morally dicey territory once, say, local govt. starts dictating which stores should feature in our towns.
[1] In itself, it’s a fact rather than a problem. The consequences of High Street uniformity is the problem.
Comment by You Know Who — January 15, 2006 @ 9:08 am
Globalization is a many-faceted animal, as we all know. I suggest the word “homogenization” is more appropriate to you argument.
Comment by beev — January 16, 2006 @ 5:51 am
Well…talking about local govt. and subsidies etc. it does make a different for example in France (due to many historical reasons etc.) it helps when there are a lot of anti-american sentiments here to stop big multi-national companies like Sbx McD etc. to spread out.
Yes, Paris has one or two now Sbx due to the existance of demands, but in Antibes (a city between Cannes and Nice) there’s no signs of Sbx, but there are of course other European multi-national companies/franchises though (not in Antibes but elsewhere).
There’s one McD on the way to Nice that has been in legal battle to stay open for years ’til now because many french don’t like it there (but of course the city mayor who was the one that ‘let’ them stay). Politics…dirty games, and they’re everywhere unfortunately from less developed countries to industrialized ones :-( Tough battles and only small steps we all can do to make a big difference I hope. It’s true that consumers, us, have a lot of power.
Comment by Maya — January 16, 2006 @ 6:12 am
SBX has the resources and effective strategies; less a product of evil mindedness, I think, in this case, as an inevitable outcome of the structure of American business.
BUT: Just giving consumers what they want? Puh-leeeze. Every company that ever sold a poisonous, poorly built, dangerous, or otherwise bad product has trotted out that tired old line. It is is the moral equivalent of “I was just following orders.”
Consumers want safe, effective, clean, ethical products, but don’t want to be gouged for it. They are *often* willing to sacrifice all those good things for short term gratification however — perceived status, chocolate cravings, etc. They are *especially* willing to make the short cited choice when instigated to do so by marketing; and marketing, of course, is driven by the business case that does not value the secondary costs of unethical practices.
The disconnect between what a consumer says they want and what they will do if given an incentive or no viable choice is huge.
What if SBX decided to create a non-profit “healthy competition” bank, that would provide loans for independent operations in direct competition with them; what if they did not maximize profit (or booked good will, the FT rationale for the lawyers)by carpet bombing an area with outlets?
What if shareholders could complain about a companies “karma” account, or state attorney’s general could bring unfair competition claims against a company that used tactics designed to manipulate the market and squelch the competition?
Oh wait, they can! A deliberate effort to saturate an area specifically to drive out all reasonable competition — not just compete effectively — may well be actionable under current law. But I imagine there are more than a few better legal minds than mine working on that, if the facts and law line up that way.
But the real problem, again, is that the American business structure actively discourages a truly ethical business model.
Comment by Roger, Gone Green — January 16, 2006 @ 8:46 am
I spent v. lil time at the computer this weekend b/c I had friends visiting — But now I’m thinking maybe I should make it a common practice to wait a few days before writing my own comments. Cuz these comments are super insightful and interesting — albeit somewhat depressing…
It’s hard not to feel overwhelmed and powerless sometimes –
One thing I’m wondering is — As most of you know, there are 51 Starbucks within 5 miles of my zipcode, according to the Starbucks’ own store locator.
Are there any actions we can take, either legally or via the local govt., to halt the opening of, say, a 52nd Starbucks?
And, before that — How does one find out if/when a new Starbucks plans to open?
A couple asides:
Ivan — I put No Logo on my wishlist a few days ago :)Thanks for the quote!
Declan — But haven’t people like bombed McDonald’s and stuff? And I mean, really bombed — not like the San Francisco Starbucks “bomb” that ended up being a flashlight with a couple corroded batteries… I mean, I don’t think Starbucks is unique in the fact that it’s become a target…
Comment by Siel — January 16, 2006 @ 11:39 am
It’s true that consumers, us, have a lot of power.
At the risk of sounding powerless, I disagree with that. We, the consumers, are giving ourselves more credit than we deserve by believing we have power. In reality, though, we are individually absolutely powerless—corporations are aware of that. We can claim we have power only if we are organized and are united in our opposition to “evil-minded” corporations.
Comment by Garam Chai — January 17, 2006 @ 9:55 pm
Perhaps we can amend that thought a bit? Consumers have a lot of power when we act collectively?
Comment by Siel — September 26, 2006 @ 4:43 pm