$1 Coffee at Starbucks

Select Starbucks stores have started selling $1 drip coffee with free refills [p-i]. Will this revitalize their customer base, or just further damage their image? To get a feel for public opinion, I decided to seek out that oracle of all things Seattle: the Seattle LiveJournal community [#].

1. Does this make you more likely to get coffee at Starbucks?
63.6% no, 24.7% yes, 11.7% maybe
With nearly 300 responses, the majority was by far to the negative. The most frequently cited reason by far? Taste. As LJ user gomezticator wrote, “Two cups of burnt swill tastes just as shitty as one cup of burnt swill.” LJ user scene_stealer echoed this sentiment: “i personally don’t like the way starbuck’s coffee tastes which is why the $1 offer wouldn’t sway me. i think cheaper places like 7-11 or fast food joints have way better coffee.” LJ user loree added, “I’d be much more willing to buy their coffee in the first place if they’d roast their beans instead of burning them…” LJ user ebonyraine dissented, however, saying, “Refills is the number one reason I end up somewhere else for drip coffee even though I prefer Starbucks to the other places I go. I will definitely go there for this, though!”

2. Does this improve your opinion of Starbucks?
60.4% no, 25.8% yes, 13.8% maybe
Again the response was overwhelming negative. Not much commentary on this one, but I would guess it’s the same reason as above: if you don’t like the taste, nothing will make you buy the coffee. Unless you are seriously that cheap.

3. Do you think this deal will revitalize Starbucks’ customer base?

48.8% no, 36.4% yes, 14.8% yes
This response was more divided. LJ user ireplaceable wrote, “revitalizing Starbucks is more about increasing the quality of the coffee and acknowledging the individual needs of community, not just giving us the same bad coffee for less.” Others thought that drip was not the focus of their customer base anyway and therefore irrelevant. LJ user jgurney writes, “People don’t go to Czarbucks for good tasting coffee. They go for froofy coffee flavoured milk drinks. Why anyone would drink their drip is beyond explanation.” Some pointed out that this would benefit most a niche of their existing customer base, as LJ user rosebranch says, “This benefits people who (a) drink Starbucks drip in the first place, and (b) hang out at Starbucks as opposed to buying and leaving. I don’t see this being a revenue generator for them.” Finally, some expressed concern about what kind of client base this deal would attract. LJ user captain_brad sums it up simply as, “Oh, cool. Starbucks’ is opening homeless drop-in centers.”

3 Comments so far

  1. Shawn (unregistered) on January 24th, 2008 @ 3:08 pm

    Czarbucks, ha! I had not seen that one before. How witty of LJ user jgurney. Wait, maybe not so witty after all. Czar is defined as “a male monarch or emperor” and “a person having great power.” Somehow I don’t think jgurney was going for that meaning.

    Thus I am inclined to say: “Why anyone would use the term Czarbucks to put down Starbucks is beyond explanation.”

  2. Michael (unregistered) on January 24th, 2008 @ 3:24 pm

    Looks about as scientific a poll as you’re going to get from people who were predisposed to call it “Czarbucks” or claim 7-11 has quality coffee. (Some of those commenters look like they pull double duty at the PI’s Sound Off.)

  3. Mike C (unregistered) on January 24th, 2008 @ 5:11 pm

    So people who already hate Starbucks, aren’t going to go to Starbucks for $1 coffee? Go figure.

    They can have their McDonalds “custom coffee”, or delude themselves that coffee at another local coffee shop is somehow “better”. I don’t care what people think, I’ll stick with Starbucks.

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.