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.

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 …