Reaping What They Sowed

In case you think that I've spent too much time recently berating Starbucks for diluting its brand, I'll throw in another example. Yesterday it was announced that the British manufacturer of crystal and china, Waterford Wedgwood, was filing for bankruptcy. Sounds like another case of a company overexpanding in the neverending chase for financial success, only to hit a wall when the market becomes oversaturated and demand falls.

In fact, I'll use another example, that of Krispy Kreme. As an article by Kate Sullivan in CFO Magazine states:

"In its quest for growth, Krispy Kreme also squandered some of its mystique. "They became ubiquitous," says Jonathan Waite, an analyst for KeyBanc Capital Markets in Los Angeles. "Not just in sheer numbers of restaurant units, but also roughly half of their sales started going to grocery stores, gas stations, kiosks. Anywhere that consumers could be found, you could find a Krispy Kreme."

I'd brought up a quote by Issy Sharpe of "trust being a company's emotional capital" previously. This trust needs to be extended to both employees and customers. If a customer chooses a brand based on how it is promoted, only to find out that these claims no longer hold true, then where is the trust? If Wedgwood and Waterford are steeped with British and Irish history, but most of the porcelain is produced in Jakarta and crystal in eastern Europe, then the brand isn't living up to what it has been promising.

Venti Vidi Vici

Its been a while.

Yesterday I hung out with my friend Andy and we saw "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button." Definitely worth seeing. Even if the heartwarming story leaves you cold, the makeup and special effects in watching Brad Pitt go from an old man to a baby and Cate Blanchett from a young girl to an old woman are worthwhile.

We also went to Starbucks where I discovered that I was still able to order a "short" drink, even though they haven't been listed on the menu for years. You know, because "tall" is the new "small." We were also talking about "venti" and wondering what it really means. According to an online tranlsation site I found, in Italian it means "twenty" which probably refers to the size of the cup which holds twenty fluid ounces. Does anyone actually need twenty ounces of a Starbucks coffee beverage? I'm sure that, at the very least, sixteen of those ounces are steamed milk. But really, I'm a hypocrite. Starbucks pisses me off, and yet I still patronize them from time to time.

I'd hoped that something positive might happen after Howard Schultz's internal memo criticizing the company's massive expansion was leaked. (Daniel Gross wrote a really great article discussing the issue for the LA Times in 2007.) However, no such luck. The move to stop selling breakfast sandwiches was cancelled and now there is also oatmeal and piadinis to be had in addition to the other breakfast sandwiches. I don't know what the hell a "piadini" is, but I'm guessing it is some sort of Americanized pseudo-Italian made-up word. I could be wrong, but I'm too depressed by the fact that they are selling them to bother looking it up.

McCafe Taste Test

After writing about the coffee wars the other day, I couldn't get McCafe out of my head. Is it really a better, cheaper version of Starbucks? I had to know.

On my way down to class yesterday (we were meeting at the art museum downtown), I stopped at McDonald's for dinner. I confess that the McRib is sleazy and disgusting, but I still love it. I also grabbed a "medium mocha" since that is one of my usual coffee drinks. The verdict? Well the price was better, $2.79 compared to $3.40 at a Starbucks a block away. It also didn't have that burnt taste that Starbucks coffee drinks frequently have. But it was cloyingly sweet and tasted like it was made from corn syrup. Which it probably was.

I still don't mind their regular coffee, but perhaps next time I should just try a $1.99 latte. On the mocha front, I'd have to say they failed.

Starbucks vs. Julep Nail Parlor

To start out, yes, I do recall a blog posted in September when I said, "So. No more ranting about Julep." Not that I'm excusing myself for going back on my word, but this post is less of a rant and more of a commentary about two things.

1) There is an article I just read a couple days ago called Starbucks Blues that reminded me a lot of Julep. Why? Well, aside from the owner having been a former Starbucks executive, the issues that the article was bringing up about the way Starbucks was dealing with both the recession and their employees sounded rather familiar. For example, take the following sentence from the article referring to the general Starbucks store experience:

"The store atmosphere remains suffused with NPR-style high-mindedness."

Now, read a quote directly from the Parlor Games blog written by Julep's owner:

"I LOVE our earth-friendly ribbon - Recycled and Recyclable, with our elegant-but-cute-as-a-button leaf cluster printed with soy-based ink."

Sound a little high-minded? (To say nothing of greenwashing, but that's another post.)

2) The other thing actually fits right in with the article too. The main point that author Liza Featherstone had was that Starbucks was indirectly taking measures to thin out their employees by implementing a new human resources strategy:

"This new "philosophy" is called "Optimal Scheduling," and it requires that "partners" (Starbucks-speak for employees) must dramatically increase their own flexibility. If they'd like to work full time, they must be available to work 70 percent of open store hours. (For a Starbucks open 16 hours a day, as is typical, this means 80.5 hours per week.)"

After hearing about a mandatory employee meeting that took place tonight where Vernisseurs were informed of a sudden change in compensation structure (which involves moving from a guaranteed hourly rate to a commission percentage off of services done), I realized that this sounded oddly familiar. Moreso because some people were offered commission rates at ridiculously low percentages (low-to-mid twenty percentile) in what I can only assume was an attempt to get them to quit. (If not, then it was a blatant attempt to take advantage of them.) It also seemed like a fairly desperate move, especially considering that I've heard business is rather stagnant at the two new locations that opened this year. (With another store opening planned for the spring perhaps?)

When I finally found the Starbucks Blues article and read it again, I was able to put all the pieces together. I don't think of Starbucks as the epitome of evil, but they also certainly aren't as socially responsible as they'd have one believe. Nor are their espresso drinks particularly good, although I admit to being spoiled by living on a block directly between two Vivace storefronts. And as for Julep, it seems to me like a case where you can take the executive out of Starbucks, but you can't take the Starbucks out of the executive.

Starbucks Luxe

Before I shut down my laptop to pack it up I'll throw up one last post. Saw a brief thing on Slate

in Kausfiles (Mickey Kaus' weblog):

Venti Snooty Latte: A new threat to social equality--the frequent-customer snob. The NYT's Ron Lieber doesn't just want freebies for his repeat Starbucks patronage. He wants something more:

Rewards are nice, but recognition is better. So if I'm one of Starbucks's best customers, I want to have elite status, as I do on American Airlines. I want shorter lines, better freebies, special seating (Aeron chairs, preferably) and electrical outlets reserved just for me and my laptop. [E.A.]

A creep, no? It's one thing for Starbucks to give Lieber free wi-fi and discounts. It's another to reward him by undermining the essentially egalitarian experience that's part of the appeal of a good American "third place." ...

Gross. I already find Starbucks annoying enough that I generally avoid it. Which luckily, I am easily able to do since I live in Seattle. There is a veritable plethora of coffee alternatives in this city that serve espresso that is MUCH better than Starbucks, such as Vivace, Cafe Ladro, Top Pot, Herkimer, and Bellino to name a few. Several of those places are also within walking distance of my apartment (lucky me!) and NONE of them has a velvet rope or VIP section. I'm really not feeling this sense of exclusive individual entitlement that seems to be permeating society today. Is everybody turning into Paris Hilton or something? Do people really believe that driving a luxury vehicle makes them a more worthy person?

I certainly enjoy nice things and tailored services as much as the next person, but I don't think these things are necessary. Nor do I expect them from such regular things as getting coffee in the morning. Or afternoon, or evening. I'm not against Capitalism, but I do have a problem with Consumerism. Blech!