howard shultz worries that starbucks is losing its charm
wow. Last week, a memo from Starbucks Chairman Howard Shultz to the company’s CEO leaked onto the internet. In it, he complains about how the changes made to allow the company’s massive expansion (automatic espresso machines, pre-ground coffee, standard store design) are draining it of its soul. A lot of people assumed that it was a fake, but today Jim Romanesko the Wall Street Journal has confirmed [#] its authenticity:
… when we went to automatic espresso machines, we solved a major problem in terms of speed of service and efficiency. At the same time, we overlooked the fact that we would remove much of the romance and theatre that was in play with the use of the La Marzocca machines. This specific decision became even more damaging when the height of the machines, which are now in thousands of stores, blocked the visual sight line the customer previously had to watch the drink being made, and for the intimate experience with the barista. … Some people even call our stores sterile, cookie cutter, no longer reflecting the passion our partners feel about our coffee. [starbucksgossip]
Both the memo and the comments from Starbucks devotees and baristas make for fascinating reading.
Some people even call our stores sterile, cookie cutter, no longer reflecting the passion our partners feel about our coffee.
I don’t remember a time when Starbucks wasn’t cookie cutter.
Oh, a long time ago Starbucks was actually pretty cool. “Tall” wasn’t their smallest size. (To this day I will periodically attempt to order a “short” out of habit and it’s been ages since they had that size.) They sold less miscellaneous smack and the focus was totally on the coffee.
They have been cookie cutter for a good many years, though. I don’t hate them for it–I think most of their coffees are perfectly adequate and obviously their business model has brought them a lot of success–but I think Howard’s more than just a little wonky in the ol’ conky if he’s just noticing this NOW.
I’ve been saying this for a long time: Starbucks is the Denny’s of specialty coffee. If you’re in some strange town looking for breakfast you know exactly what you’ll get at Denny’s; likewise, if you’re looking for something beyond drip coffee you know exactly what you’ll get at Starbucks. I haven’t had coffee from Starbucks here in Seattle for years because there are so many superior espresso joints in every neighborhood. But if I’m in an airport, or an unfamiliar part of an unfamiliar city, Starbucks is a reasonable fallback. You know exactly what you’ll get. It’s no longer quirky or the highest quality precisely because it is so consistent.
What I always think is funny is the whining you see in other places — particularly New York City a few years back — about Starbucks arriving and driving the “mom and pop” coffee shops out of business. The small guys have no trouble competing in Seattle, but that’s because they serve better coffee and deliver a better experience (and perhaps have more discerning customers). I tried many of those “mom and pop” places and I can understand why Starbucks wiped them out. People now understand there is such a thing as good and bad coffee, and Starbucks is largely responsible for raising that bar. Those mom and pop places didn’t measure up, but now neither does Starbucks — there’s now another tier above them. They helped create it, but they can’t reach it. Starbucks is what it is, and it will never again be a quirky little shop in the Market serving the best coffee around, whatever romantic notions Schultz might have. The world has moved on, and so has Starbucks.
a few of the in-other-store shops might not have them, but you can still order a short at almost any “real” starbucks.
Joe: WORD.
@Joe: True. I worked at the ‘bucks for 3 years, at several stores (probably about 5 or 6 total) in So. California and in Seattle. I fully agree with you – I’ve long considered Starbucks to be a good thing to have in the market, especially in places where it is indeed “raising the bar” of coffee quality.
It’s just that here in Seattle, Starbucks is by no means the best quality coffee.
Since I quit a year and a half ago, I’ve hardly been inside one, unless it’s at someone else’s initiation (gift cards, friends, and road trips).
I find Schultz’s comments hilarious. He’s the one touting the awesomeness of having 1000s of stores worldwide, and the consistent coffee experience in each one. Yet, when he McDonaldsizes the franchise by installing things like automatic machines, he complains that the spirit is lost.
You can’t have it both ways, Howie.
I’m kind of surprised that he’s aware of the vacuousness of the Starbucks “experience”. This is a company that really has done no wrong — nearly everything they’ve done has succeeded from a business standpoint. It actually speaks well of Schultz that he realizes he’s turned Starbucks into the equivalent of a fast food franchise. I have no idea how they plan to bring back any of the charm, though — I think that ship sailed 7-10 years ago.
I can get in and out of Starbucks in three minutes with a decent mocha latte. I can’t get a latte out of a campus stand in under ten, and that stuff can see mediocre only on a clear day. I appreciate that.
Say what you will about Starbucks, but they’ve created a market for coffee in their wake, one that now means I can get a decent latte in some places I had a hard time even getting decent drip out of fifteen years ago.
If Schultz really wants to bring back the old days, he shouldn’t be looking to the auto-espresso machines, but to the things that made Starbucks into meeting places. I was in a “newer” Starbucks a few months ago, and it had plastic seats like lawn furniture (Ikea-ified). No big chairs. No couches. Just uncomfortable post-modernist crap.
WTF is a mocha latte?
Starbucks caters to their customers. The problem with Starbucks is the clientele.