Café Starbucks Coffee and I

To me, a self-proclaimed, self-respecting coffee drinker, Starbucks is another icon of the detestable USA imperialist “cultureless” culture, along side with its compatriots McDonald’s and Gap. In other words, it is not worthy of my patronage. It is disconcerting that its overpriced and unexciting coffee, global scale and uniformity, marketing strategy and corporate culture, and half-heartedness in its devotion to fair trade is becoming (if not already) the synonym of coffee (i.e., “Let’s go get a cup of Starbucks” as opposed to “let’s go get a cup of coffee”).

As a corporate chain, Starbucks has stringent quality control. Besides the unalterable taste of the coffee, they go so far to forbid their employees from wearing any fragrant/perfume, fearing that it would distort the aroma of their product. From the view of running a company, these measures are neutral, if not brilliant. But, like wine, one of the more interesting aspects of coffee drinking is its variability and diversity. Many coffee addicts might agree that the slight unpredictability and occasional surprise in their daily cup helps to spice up their otherwise mundane life (it also gives them something to complain/compliment about). The chain model ensures the quality and standard of the coffee, but it takes away the possible excitement from coffee drinking. Another problem with the international coffee company is the uniformity of its décor. A Starbucks in Seattle looks (and smells) exactly the same as the one formerly in the Forbidden City. Again, diversity is jeopardized.

One of the secrets behind the success of Starbucks as a chain is in its clustering model. What they do is that they would pick a neighborhood and flood it with their cafes. In other words, you’ll likely see more than multiple Starbucks in an area. I remember when I was living in Tokyo I would walk to Akasaka for dinner with my dorm mates. We were always amused by the number of Starbucks coffee we saw on our way. My last count was four, and they were about 5 minutes away from each other. Another telling illustration is in Robson Street, Vancouver. In one intersection (i.e., four corners) there are three cafes, two of which are Starbucks, diagonal from each other. Interestingly, the earnings of each individual Starbucks would drop and eventually some would shut down. The main goal of opening more retails than the market needs is to wipe out other competitors in the neighborhood. When they successfully dominate the market in the area, the redundant outlets will be purged. Local cafes cannot compete with Starbucks’ multimillion dollar marketing budget (i.e., everyone) become the immediate victim. Coffee drinkers are also victims in the long run. They loose diversity, relationships, social capital, and many different ways. Recall the story of Robson Street. The third, non-Starbucks coffeehouse is now gone, leaving the twin Starbucks brothers dominating the busiest intersection in downtown Vancouver.

Another problem with the corporate model is its profit-driven principle. To maximize profit, cost is usually cut by 1) paying employee less and 2) paying less for sources. Full-time Starbucks employees are guaranteed all sorts of generous benefits (health insurance etc.). But behind this seemingly benevolent practice is the fact that most employees are denied sufficient work hours to reach full-time status, preventing them from those benefits. The company is also allegedly against union (http://www.starbucksunion.org/; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbucks#Labor_disputes).

While Starbucks might sell fair-trade coffee in their chains, they sell even more non-fair-trade coffee, even though the cost of a liter the former is only slightly more than the latter. The logic of selling both fair and not-so-fair trade coffee is strange (around 0.25 USD, according to a storekeeper I spoke with a few years ago). Can you sell both rotten and fresh produce and convince people that your food is fine? Can you sell both sweatshop-free and sweatshop-made clothes and claim that you are an ethical brand?

I haven’t bought a cup for Starbucks coffee for over 5 years. I thank Montreal for teaching me the above lessons. Montrealers are proud coffee drinkers. Not only do they respect and value their daily fix, it is a part of their lifestyle. They would spend a good chunk of time enjoying the bitter drink while socializing in a café own by a neighbor. They would meet their friends to chat, smoke (no longer permitted by the law), study, play chess, read, gossip, and most importantly, complain about the weather and their politicians. Hours would go by as the social ties between people strengthen. Walk down the streets of Montreal you’ll see many interesting looking and decorated coffeehouses. In fact, many cities take pride in their vibrant and often historic cafes and they have long become important tourist attractions (e.g., Paris and Vienna). The relationships built in these cafes arguably are important aspect of the social fabric. One can be absent for years but when you return you’ll see the same owner who would remember that your order, the same old chess partner would be sitting in the same seat awaiting the next game. People know you by your name. Of course chains exist in any metropolitan, but they are not dominating in places like Montreal by any means. In fact Café Starbucks Coffee (by law both English and French must be present) is extremely hard to locate.

It is until we recognize the beauty of diversity and the importance of social relationships between people—between customers and storeowners and between customers—could we truly appreciate the crime and deleterious effect of Starbucks.

Christian Chan
August 9, 2007
Vancouver, BC, Canada