July 18th, 2009 / 12:11 am
Mean

This is Why Everyone Hates You, Asshole: Starbucks Edition

Let’s be honest. In the scheme of things, Starbucks is a fairly benign corporate citizen.  Sure, their union record sucks, and they run local businesses under, but on a variety of other issues–wages, environment, fair trade coffee–they’re somewhere between middling and decent, and they produce a variety of quality products that people actually want. So why does everyone hate them so much? Well in NYC, there’s almost no single Starbucks from which you cannot see another Starbucks. It’s sickening. They run local businesses out, and then all you’re left with is their Borg-like monoculture with its idiotic patois and 2k calorie frozen drinks. Now, however, Starbucks is trying to go back the other way, by testing out new Baudrillardian nightmare stores that will simulate all aspects of local indie coffee shops, from faux-hip furniture and art, to the branding on their in-store products. The Rumpus got the story from the Seattle Times, and I got it from them. The shift, essentially, is from Borg to Cylon.

The ubiquitous coffee-shop giant is dropping the household name from its 15th Avenue East store on Capitol Hill, a shop that was slated to close at one point last year but is being remodeled in Starbucks’ new rustic, eco-friendly style. It will open next week, the first of at least three remodeled Seattle-area stores that will bear the names of their neighborhoods rather than the 16,000-store chain to which they belong. … If the pilot goes well in Seattle, it could move to other markets. … Those who can capture a sense of community and offer consumers a compelling experience will win in the long run, said Michelle Barry, senior vice president of the market-research firm Hartman Group in Bellevue.

(Boldface is mine.) The article then goes on to detail how a bunch of Starbucks suits spent several months sitting in local coffee shops, not buying anything, but taking notes on decor and operations. How fucking evil is that? Seriously. Their policy is literally to target the market of people who are making a concerted effort to buy local, and then trick those people into sending their money out of said community, back to Starbucks. I don’t think you need to be a ski-masked anti-globalization activist to read this article and instantly think brick.

Dear Starbucks, When you do shit like this, all the other good(ish) stuff you do stops mattering. You’re like a child-rapist who donates a lot of money to the fight against cancer. It’s like, yeah, thanks for that, but still–this thing with the child-raping. Anyway, this is why everyone hates you. Asshole.

63 Comments

  1. PHM

      They were breaking the Wobbly’s back a couple years back. Don’t remember if the IWW won or not, but I remember they were firing workers for union association, which is illegal.

  2. PHM

      They were breaking the Wobbly’s back a couple years back. Don’t remember if the IWW won or not, but I remember they were firing workers for union association, which is illegal.

  3. Justin Taylor

      Yeah, I remembered their union record sucked, but couldn’t remember why. Thanks for that.

  4. Justin Taylor

      Yeah, I remembered their union record sucked, but couldn’t remember why. Thanks for that.

  5. mike young

      i don’t like starbucks and mostly visit only for the bathroom, but it’s not true that they run local coffeeshops out of business: http://www.slate.com/id/2180301/

      though it’s unintuitive, they actually help local coffeeshops in towns, at least according to the data in that article… but it might be different for a metropolitan area…

  6. mike young

      i don’t like starbucks and mostly visit only for the bathroom, but it’s not true that they run local coffeeshops out of business: http://www.slate.com/id/2180301/

      though it’s unintuitive, they actually help local coffeeshops in towns, at least according to the data in that article… but it might be different for a metropolitan area…

  7. Mel Bosworth

      Excellent article. Beat them to a bloody pulp. I went bare-knuckled with Best Buy recently and kicked their fucking ass.

  8. Mel Bosworth

      Excellent article. Beat them to a bloody pulp. I went bare-knuckled with Best Buy recently and kicked their fucking ass.

  9. Jeff

      I’m tired of this populist-economics internet paradigm. Why the fuck is it a fault of a business if they “run” local businesses out of town? If the local businesses provided a less shitty good/service they would get more customers. That’s how it works, like gravity and sex. Don’t fuck with the laws of economics.

      PS – I don’t patronize Starbucks because I hate their products – mostly.

  10. Jeff

      I’m tired of this populist-economics internet paradigm. Why the fuck is it a fault of a business if they “run” local businesses out of town? If the local businesses provided a less shitty good/service they would get more customers. That’s how it works, like gravity and sex. Don’t fuck with the laws of economics.

      PS – I don’t patronize Starbucks because I hate their products – mostly.

  11. mike young

      and to clarify, it’s not that starbucks doesn’t want to derail local coffeeshops: they do, hence this new strategy– it’s just that they’re kind of bad at it, which is funny

  12. mike young

      and to clarify, it’s not that starbucks doesn’t want to derail local coffeeshops: they do, hence this new strategy– it’s just that they’re kind of bad at it, which is funny

  13. Aaron

      true jeff, a superior business running an inferior or weaker one out of business is as natural a phenom in a free market economy as lizard-to-insect predation is in a desert ecosystem. but i think in the case of chain restaurants like starbucks etc, there’s this hazy factor of “group behavior” and chain ubiquity that leads the american masses to chains over local shops.

      partly it’s this consumer mindlessness that draws them there like moths: “borg 1, i am thirsty. ” “borg 2, this requires a trip to a food distribution center, the closest ones selling salted fat/wipped frothalota is McX/Starbucks.” “Let us now refuel there.” this is a psychological condition in that it’s a narrow conception of selection, thinking chains are hungry peoples’ only option. since chains outnumber the little guys in most markets, and people are often sheep, that’s where they go.

      that itself is starbucks’ economic evolutionary advantage, but it’s not necessarily the same as providing bad service or inferior products. mass-produced-starbucks-scone-1 might not taste any different than college-kid-baked-indie-rock-scone-2, but consumers never get to #2.

      i don’t hit starbucks either except to pee, and even then i’m nice enough to lift the seat. this article makes me think it might be time to sprinkle when i tinkle. thanks for posting justin.

  14. Aaron

      true jeff, a superior business running an inferior or weaker one out of business is as natural a phenom in a free market economy as lizard-to-insect predation is in a desert ecosystem. but i think in the case of chain restaurants like starbucks etc, there’s this hazy factor of “group behavior” and chain ubiquity that leads the american masses to chains over local shops.

      partly it’s this consumer mindlessness that draws them there like moths: “borg 1, i am thirsty. ” “borg 2, this requires a trip to a food distribution center, the closest ones selling salted fat/wipped frothalota is McX/Starbucks.” “Let us now refuel there.” this is a psychological condition in that it’s a narrow conception of selection, thinking chains are hungry peoples’ only option. since chains outnumber the little guys in most markets, and people are often sheep, that’s where they go.

      that itself is starbucks’ economic evolutionary advantage, but it’s not necessarily the same as providing bad service or inferior products. mass-produced-starbucks-scone-1 might not taste any different than college-kid-baked-indie-rock-scone-2, but consumers never get to #2.

      i don’t hit starbucks either except to pee, and even then i’m nice enough to lift the seat. this article makes me think it might be time to sprinkle when i tinkle. thanks for posting justin.

  15. Aaron

      also, buying coffee from this new faux-local-starbucks seems like buying a plastic heirloom tomato. i just had to add that.

  16. Aaron

      also, buying coffee from this new faux-local-starbucks seems like buying a plastic heirloom tomato. i just had to add that.

  17. Janey Smith

      Brick.

  18. Janey Smith

      Brick.

  19. Red

      I think Justin’s going a bit over the top here.

      This idea isn’t new. While studying abroad in Edinburgh, I remember stopping into what I thought was an authentic British pub. The Scottish folks who soon met up with my party thought me hilarious. The place wasn’t authentic; it was owned by a massive conglomerate. Their business model was the same that Starbucks is testing: the name and interior of each pub was different, but the beers and food was exactly the same. Their ‘brand’ was almost invisible, but there: just a tiny logo at the bottom of the food menu.

      Of course, I felt like a jackass. I’d fallen for the company’s set-up. I’d been duped.

      But here’s the thing: after we finished our round of pints, the Scots took us to a truly authentic pub — an independent, privately owned bar that had been in business for ages. It was just a few blocks away. It was awesome, and filled with great people. The other pub, on the other hand, had been by and large filled with douchebags and tourists.

      The moral:

      You need to give local consumers more credit. Savvy people can sniff this garbage out. There’s going to be press about this. People are going to talk. People will know that it’s still ‘just Starbucks.’ And the folks that go to these new Starbucks? Same as the folk who went to the old Starbucks.

      There was a study or an experiment done awhile back — I forget who it was done by, sadly — where two separate exhibits were displayed: one showed a famous painting by a great master, the other showed a prefect facsimile of the same painting. Two separate groups were given the opportunity to look at the paintings in question. Most people from the group that was offered a view of the true painting went to see it. Many, many less people from the group offered the fake painting were as interested.

      So I say we should all settle down: let the tourists and douchebags have their Starbucks, whether it’s called Starbucks or not. I’ll stick to my indie shop down the street. So will everyone I know and like.

  20. Red

      I think Justin’s going a bit over the top here.

      This idea isn’t new. While studying abroad in Edinburgh, I remember stopping into what I thought was an authentic British pub. The Scottish folks who soon met up with my party thought me hilarious. The place wasn’t authentic; it was owned by a massive conglomerate. Their business model was the same that Starbucks is testing: the name and interior of each pub was different, but the beers and food was exactly the same. Their ‘brand’ was almost invisible, but there: just a tiny logo at the bottom of the food menu.

      Of course, I felt like a jackass. I’d fallen for the company’s set-up. I’d been duped.

      But here’s the thing: after we finished our round of pints, the Scots took us to a truly authentic pub — an independent, privately owned bar that had been in business for ages. It was just a few blocks away. It was awesome, and filled with great people. The other pub, on the other hand, had been by and large filled with douchebags and tourists.

      The moral:

      You need to give local consumers more credit. Savvy people can sniff this garbage out. There’s going to be press about this. People are going to talk. People will know that it’s still ‘just Starbucks.’ And the folks that go to these new Starbucks? Same as the folk who went to the old Starbucks.

      There was a study or an experiment done awhile back — I forget who it was done by, sadly — where two separate exhibits were displayed: one showed a famous painting by a great master, the other showed a prefect facsimile of the same painting. Two separate groups were given the opportunity to look at the paintings in question. Most people from the group that was offered a view of the true painting went to see it. Many, many less people from the group offered the fake painting were as interested.

      So I say we should all settle down: let the tourists and douchebags have their Starbucks, whether it’s called Starbucks or not. I’ll stick to my indie shop down the street. So will everyone I know and like.

  21. Janey Smith

      Brick. (This is fun!)

  22. Janey Smith

      Brick. (This is fun!)

  23. Tourist Douchebag

      Well, that’s a very solid point Red. People will talk. I just hope my Two-Shot Caramel Frapalatachino Shake doesn’t go up in price. My douche needs emptying…

  24. Tourist Douchebag

      Well, that’s a very solid point Red. People will talk. I just hope my Two-Shot Caramel Frapalatachino Shake doesn’t go up in price. My douche needs emptying…

  25. Michael James

      “I don’t think you need to be a ski-masked anti-globalization activist to read this article and instantly think brick.”

      I think that’s hilarious. But I read it wrong the first time. I read it as “I don’t think you need a ski-mask to be a pro-globalization criminal” or something.

      I prefer Viento y Agua (Long Beach, CA off 4th Street) or Portfolio Coffeehouse across the street from the independent bookstore {OPEN} to Starbucks. In starbucks, they make you leave if you don’t buy something. When I was broke I used to try and write there and they’d take a broom and make me scamper off. I also tried to hold a poetry reading there (outfitted with microphone) and everyone not only kept talking but talked LOUDER.

      Juxtapose that with those other places I mentioned, who hold readings and actually get a mass audience that LISTENS (and sells indie books to boot!) and Starbucks can choke on a left nut.

  26. Michael James

      oh, almost forgot — buy my product

  27. Michael James

      “I don’t think you need to be a ski-masked anti-globalization activist to read this article and instantly think brick.”

      I think that’s hilarious. But I read it wrong the first time. I read it as “I don’t think you need a ski-mask to be a pro-globalization criminal” or something.

      I prefer Viento y Agua (Long Beach, CA off 4th Street) or Portfolio Coffeehouse across the street from the independent bookstore {OPEN} to Starbucks. In starbucks, they make you leave if you don’t buy something. When I was broke I used to try and write there and they’d take a broom and make me scamper off. I also tried to hold a poetry reading there (outfitted with microphone) and everyone not only kept talking but talked LOUDER.

      Juxtapose that with those other places I mentioned, who hold readings and actually get a mass audience that LISTENS (and sells indie books to boot!) and Starbucks can choke on a left nut.

  28. Michael James

      oh, almost forgot — buy my product

  29. PHM

      Your laws of economics have failed so many times I don’t even want to start that debate.

      I will, however, inform you that your tiredness is unwarranted, for starters, smart guy. Listen: it’s not better for a local economy if a Starbucks comes in and the workers who were making $10/hour which they spent mostly locally now lose their jobs because the shop goes out of business. Even if they’re often a portion of the population who people think don’t need jobs, ie college students, it’s still bad for a local economy if those people have less money to spend in other establishments. Starbucks is modifying their methods because they’ve realized that there is a die-hard crowd who will always go local, and so they want to emulate local. The majority of Americans, smart folks like you, want to always be in the same safe environment when they drink their $5 essence of coffee drink. Yours laws of economics also fail when it comes to Starbucks, because they overcharge over most local joints I’ve ever patronized.

      Last time I was in Baltimore I noticed they were putting one up around the corner from my favorite place there, Red Emma’s. I didn’t worry that Emma’s will be gone in the future, though, because the people who go there already prefer the ethics and quality they serve. Starbucks wants to break this crowd by using this new strategy, and any sane economist can only hope they will fail–more money in corporate pockets, less in the pockets of workers, this means that the economy around the new versions of Starbucks will begin to degrade and fail and so be replaced by other corporate stores.

      And so on.

      You are wrong, sir.

  30. PHM

      Your laws of economics have failed so many times I don’t even want to start that debate.

      I will, however, inform you that your tiredness is unwarranted, for starters, smart guy. Listen: it’s not better for a local economy if a Starbucks comes in and the workers who were making $10/hour which they spent mostly locally now lose their jobs because the shop goes out of business. Even if they’re often a portion of the population who people think don’t need jobs, ie college students, it’s still bad for a local economy if those people have less money to spend in other establishments. Starbucks is modifying their methods because they’ve realized that there is a die-hard crowd who will always go local, and so they want to emulate local. The majority of Americans, smart folks like you, want to always be in the same safe environment when they drink their $5 essence of coffee drink. Yours laws of economics also fail when it comes to Starbucks, because they overcharge over most local joints I’ve ever patronized.

      Last time I was in Baltimore I noticed they were putting one up around the corner from my favorite place there, Red Emma’s. I didn’t worry that Emma’s will be gone in the future, though, because the people who go there already prefer the ethics and quality they serve. Starbucks wants to break this crowd by using this new strategy, and any sane economist can only hope they will fail–more money in corporate pockets, less in the pockets of workers, this means that the economy around the new versions of Starbucks will begin to degrade and fail and so be replaced by other corporate stores.

      And so on.

      You are wrong, sir.

  31. potty mouth

      not to disagree, but don’t forget that “workers” (as in “less in the pockets of workers”) are also starbucks workers. they are the working class as well — why else would they try to unionize?

  32. potty mouth

      not to disagree, but don’t forget that “workers” (as in “less in the pockets of workers”) are also starbucks workers. they are the working class as well — why else would they try to unionize?

  33. David K.

      I swore off them when they subsidized the last Joni Mitchell record.

  34. David K.

      I swore off them when they subsidized the last Joni Mitchell record.

  35. Alicia

      I vein-slam Starbucks drip with a 50 cc syringe and a 16 gauge needle. Then I’m all: Abre los ojos, vieja. It’s the dirty black monkey on my back.

  36. Alicia

      I vein-slam Starbucks drip with a 50 cc syringe and a 16 gauge needle. Then I’m all: Abre los ojos, vieja. It’s the dirty black monkey on my back.

  37. PHM

      I won’t argue with that, of course, but the point is that it’s better for an economy if someone’s making a little more than minimum wage than if they are making exactly minimum wage. The more money in the pockets of the people who spend it, the more money in the local economy, the more economic growth that is seen.

      Not that I even like capitalism, but I at least understand as much about it. The truth is that money spent in retail and such is money spent in ways that create jobs and other economic growth (like services for the people who now have jobs, and construction for the new employers, etc). When money is in corporate hands it is spent in ways that have the opposite effect on the economy. And when the Jimmy Chens of the world stop us from taxing those bastards to get it back into the economy, the economy loses that money for good. Until such a time that they reinvest it in a new store, at which point we see that money for a little longer, and then not only does it disappear back up their chute, but more goes with it. Corporations like Starbucks are generally the worst leeches we’ve ever seen, and people who think they’ve done any good for America or anywhere else need to get their heads on straight.

      This isn’t to say that the American consumer IS NOT TO BLAME. Certainly he is, but then again, until now it wasn’t his job that was on the line, was it? Because he, the middle class worker, never relied on the Wal Marts and so forth to employ him. So it didn’t bother him how big they got. Now he might be singing a different tune, and the question is whether or not it’s too late.

  38. PHM

      I won’t argue with that, of course, but the point is that it’s better for an economy if someone’s making a little more than minimum wage than if they are making exactly minimum wage. The more money in the pockets of the people who spend it, the more money in the local economy, the more economic growth that is seen.

      Not that I even like capitalism, but I at least understand as much about it. The truth is that money spent in retail and such is money spent in ways that create jobs and other economic growth (like services for the people who now have jobs, and construction for the new employers, etc). When money is in corporate hands it is spent in ways that have the opposite effect on the economy. And when the Jimmy Chens of the world stop us from taxing those bastards to get it back into the economy, the economy loses that money for good. Until such a time that they reinvest it in a new store, at which point we see that money for a little longer, and then not only does it disappear back up their chute, but more goes with it. Corporations like Starbucks are generally the worst leeches we’ve ever seen, and people who think they’ve done any good for America or anywhere else need to get their heads on straight.

      This isn’t to say that the American consumer IS NOT TO BLAME. Certainly he is, but then again, until now it wasn’t his job that was on the line, was it? Because he, the middle class worker, never relied on the Wal Marts and so forth to employ him. So it didn’t bother him how big they got. Now he might be singing a different tune, and the question is whether or not it’s too late.

  39. le penne altrui : 495

      […] but still–this thing with the child-raping. Anyway, this is why everyone hates you. / taken from HTMLGIANT / This is Why Everyone Hates You, Asshole: Starbucks Edition  / it was one of the texts Leave a Reply […]

  40. Rebecca Loudon

      I don’t know why you kids still think douchebag or douche is a funny insult. No one uses douchebags anymore. Do you even know what one looks like? Why not use rectal thermometer? It’s from the same era. Too phallic? Just curious.

      If you want good coffee on 15th on Cap Hill go to Victrola’s across the street. After you’re finished drinking your coffee and looking at local art and maybe listening to some poetry, you can either throw your cup through the window of one of the 2 Starfucks that are on the same side of the same block that is being ‘recreated’ or you can go to a bar and get drunk until you pass out and then go to the hospital that is right down the street! Fun all around.

      http://www.victrolacoffee.com/

      Cheers,
      Rebecca Loudon

  41. Rebecca Loudon

      I don’t know why you kids still think douchebag or douche is a funny insult. No one uses douchebags anymore. Do you even know what one looks like? Why not use rectal thermometer? It’s from the same era. Too phallic? Just curious.

      If you want good coffee on 15th on Cap Hill go to Victrola’s across the street. After you’re finished drinking your coffee and looking at local art and maybe listening to some poetry, you can either throw your cup through the window of one of the 2 Starfucks that are on the same side of the same block that is being ‘recreated’ or you can go to a bar and get drunk until you pass out and then go to the hospital that is right down the street! Fun all around.

      http://www.victrolacoffee.com/

      Cheers,
      Rebecca Loudon

  42. Justin Taylor

      Thanks, Rebecca. I think “rectal thermometer” would make a killer piece of slang. Maybe shorten to “rec-therm” for the sake of brevity, and to further baffle the olds? As in, “nice face-plant, Daryl, you fucking rec-therm.”

  43. Justin Taylor

      Thanks, Rebecca. I think “rectal thermometer” would make a killer piece of slang. Maybe shorten to “rec-therm” for the sake of brevity, and to further baffle the olds? As in, “nice face-plant, Daryl, you fucking rec-therm.”

  44. Blake Butler

      haha

  45. Blake Butler

      haha

  46. Jimmy Chen

      i don’t understand the blanket ‘jimmy chens of the world’ reference.
      you don’t know how i feel about this issue.

  47. Jimmy Chen

      i don’t understand the blanket ‘jimmy chens of the world’ reference.
      you don’t know how i feel about this issue.

  48. ryanp

      ‘Douchebag’ as an insult is indeed stupid.

      Has anyone ever encountered some indie-made acid-free coffee that works as well as the Folgers brand? I would love to funnel my coffee habit $ to an independent seller, but haven’t found such a product… (GERD is a curse)

  49. ryanp

      ‘Douchebag’ as an insult is indeed stupid.

      Has anyone ever encountered some indie-made acid-free coffee that works as well as the Folgers brand? I would love to funnel my coffee habit $ to an independent seller, but haven’t found such a product… (GERD is a curse)

  50. Stephen Elliott

      hey, where’s the rumpus link…

  51. Stephen Elliott

      hey, where’s the rumpus link…

  52. Janey Smith

      Justin, you’re such a fucking rec-them!

  53. Janey Smith

      Justin, you’re such a fucking rec-them!

  54. Janey Smith

      In your butt, you fucking rec-them. (If this is REALLY Stephen Elliott, then I am REALLY NOT sorry. Invite me to your next party, you rumpus-linking rec-them!)

  55. Janey Smith

      In your butt, you fucking rec-them. (If this is REALLY Stephen Elliott, then I am REALLY NOT sorry. Invite me to your next party, you rumpus-linking rec-them!)

  56. brandon

      rebecca, im a famous seattle author on capitol hill, i am an occasional patron of victrola, hi

  57. brandon

      rebecca, im a famous seattle author on capitol hill, i am an occasional patron of victrola, hi

  58. reynard seifert

      i never flush when i shit at starbucks and i think others should follow suit

      as a shitter, you have the power to flush or not to flush – think about it

  59. reynard seifert

      i never flush when i shit at starbucks and i think others should follow suit

      as a shitter, you have the power to flush or not to flush – think about it

  60. Rebecca Loudon

      Brandon, hello. Congratulations on your Seattle fame. I looked at your blog and so far it seems you have not succumbed to writing about heron. Well done.
      Rebecca

  61. brandon

      rebecca, hi, thank you re fame comment and comment about doing well. it was good to talk to you.

  62. brandon

      rebecca, hi, thank you re fame comment and comment about doing well. it was good to talk to you.

  63. Memo to Starbucks: You Can’t Buy Authenticity | Food Politics

      […] you think of Starbucks—and the quality of its coffee—you have to wonder about this new ploy. I’m no […]