# Your Thoughts on Starbucks



## CodaBun (Jan 28, 2013)

I've never really known where I stand on Starbucks. They terrify me, on the one hand, because they're taking over. But they supposedly participate in Fair Trade and boast global responsibility and what not. But then again, they failed to pay taxes in the UK for about fourteen years. And then there's these absurd Starbucks conspiracy's saying their logo is Queen something. Anyway, if anyone has any input to sway me one way or another, let me know. My most recent post on the matter was the purchase of their first coffee farm in Poas, Costa Rica, seemingly a positive move.

Admin: link removed due to shameless self promotion of a blog in every post!


----------



## coffeechap (Apr 5, 2012)

My wife who is italian describes their coffee quite apt, dirty dish water coffee!


----------



## RoloD (Oct 13, 2010)

I hate the design of their shops and their coffee is overpriced crap. IMHO. From what I've read, their attitude to their staff leaves a lot to be desired and some Starbucks I've been in have been absolutely filthy. They represent the sort of corporate chain-store ethos I do everything I can to avoid. I don't really have anything positive to say about them.

As far as their tax avoidance, yes, that is shit but I blame the government for allowing such loopholes to exist as all companies (and individuals, for that matter) pay the minimum tax they can legally get away with. I've yet to hear of anybody who pays more tax than they have to by law.


----------



## sjenner (Nov 8, 2012)

As I understand things, an international corporation is legally obliged to its shareholders. One way of doing this is to pay tax at the most competitive rate. I understand that this company chose to use Luxembourg as its EU tax base, and as far as I know it pays all of its government dues to the good people of that place. Tax competition is one of those things that helps big companies get bigger (corporatism), and small companies cannot compete. I believe that Starbucks do a lot of franchising, and the local franchises... say those operating in the UK pay their local taxes.

The EU is a fascist construct which practises the main facet of fascism, which is corporate government in bed with corporate business at the expense of the hapless, democratically denied citizens.

Starbucks is a model EU business, if David Cameron was really upset about their fiscal behaviour, he would stop grandstanding to the voters about how "naughty" companies like this are, and do something about getting control of the UK tax raising abilities back from Brussels.

I actually went there by accident once... I wasn't disappointed... Their coffee making abilities are legendary.


----------



## Eyedee (Sep 13, 2010)

I agree totally with all the previous comments, I did think that when I visited a Starbucks in the USA I would automatically get a better drink---no so--its the same old formula. I think they reduce the amount of coffee in the shot on an annual basis to maximise their profits thinking (quite rightly) that the majority of people will not notice/complain and if they do an extra shot of espresso is only blah blah.

They have made a successful business out of mediocraty and continue to expand.

Ian


----------



## lookseehear (Jul 16, 2010)

sjenner said:


> As I understand things, an international corporation is legally obliged to its shareholders. One way of doing this is to pay tax at the most competitive rate. I understand that this company chose to use Luxembourg as its EU tax base, and as far as I know it pays all of its government dues to the good people of that place. Tax competition is one of those things that helps big companies get bigger (corporatism), and small companies cannot compete. I believe that Starbucks do a lot of franchising, and the local franchises... say those operating in the UK pay their local taxes.
> 
> The EU is a fascist construct which practises the main facet of fascism, which is corporate government in bed with corporate business at the expense of the hapless, democratically denied citizens.
> 
> ...


I completely agree, however in practice it really doesn't seem that easy to enforce. The issues surrounding transfer pricing (ie what Starbucks in Luxembourg or wherever decides to charge Starbucks UK to use the name, branding etc) mean that it becomes too easy for big companies to shift profits elsewhere.

The Economist had an article a little while ago which put forward the point that if we lower corporation tax rates in the UK it becomes more attractive for big companies to be based here and more tax might be collected as a result, but who is to say that Ireland, Luxembourg etc wont do likewise!

The problem (like you mentioned) is that company directors are answerable to the shareholders and are therefore obliged not to pay any more tax than they have to by law but companies like Starbucks, Google and Amazon are toeing the line pretty closely!


----------



## sjenner (Nov 8, 2012)

lookseehear said:


> I completely agree, however in practice it really doesn't seem that easy to enforce. The issues surrounding transfer pricing (ie what Starbucks in Luxembourg or wherever decides to charge Starbucks UK to use the name, branding etc) mean that it becomes too easy for big companies to shift profits elsewhere.
> 
> The Economist had an article a little while ago which put forward the point that if we lower corporation tax rates in the UK it becomes more attractive for big companies to be based here and more tax might be collected as a result, but who is to say that Ireland, Luxembourg etc wont do likewise!
> 
> The problem (like you mentioned) is that company directors are answerable to the shareholders and are therefore obliged not to pay any more tax than they have to by law but companies like Starbucks, Google and Amazon are toeing the line pretty closely!


Certainly if business tax was lowered to zero rate, competition would have to be centred on product quality or something.

This kind of tax is absurd anyway, since a company's customers pay the sales tax and the corporation tax, and the cost of redecorating the shop, and every other company expense, in the price of the (so-called) coffee.

An awful lot of money is wasted on accountants, who's job is to redistribute these taxes onto the customers and the staff, or ordinary folk... Abolish the tax and the pressure on prices is reduced, and the accountants can go and do a proper job, like roasting coffee or something.


----------



## series530 (Jan 4, 2013)

One of the only things that we can commend Starbucks for being part of is the change of culture which makes UK drinkers less accepting of transport cafe coffee as served in the latter part of the last century. It opened consumers eyes to the fact that other types of coffee exists and that it doesn't have to be so thick that you cannot drink it.

For many, it still represents the pinnacle of coffee quality and, in this regard, its a real shame that the population has not moved on. Starbucks offers something to those who aspire to that level in the same way that Macdonalds or Subway or dozens of other corporations serve a certain demographic. I have no issue with that. It serves its customers.

Me? I wont set foot in one unless I cannot drive another mile down the motorway, I need a break and something warm and brown to drink. I will never choose a Starbucks when others are available. I find the coffee unacceptably bad. Essentially, typical of what is found in mainstream USA.

As to the tax situation. Fair game to them and anybody else who can get around it. While there is an ethical aspect I cannot blame them or any individual for getting around tax rules to minimise expenditure but stay on the right side of the law. In the same position, if I really felt that my tax money was wisely spent I would have little issue with paying that bit more. But I don't, so I wont.

Each and every day, seeing the inefficient way that the UK is run does not entice me to offer more of salary to help UK PLC. The mess that we are in cannot really be blamed upon this Government. We got here through decisions made over decades and not just in our lifetimes. To do the right thing and to take a proper hard stance would alienate half of the population, lead to wide spread disorder and would be a vote killer come election time.

Political suicide is never something that an elected party will contemplate and while each party canvases for our votes to skew popular political opinion we will continue to see loop holes in the tax and benefit systems which favours the likes of Starbucks, Amazon, billionaires, professional unemployed or anybody who can milk the system for personal or professional gain.


----------



## Steve_S_T (Dec 7, 2012)

I won't pretend to understand the complexities of international tax law, but I know enough about corporations to realise that blaming them for legal tax avoidance is like chastising a dog for licking his own nuts. Personally I despise the idiots in government who seek to offload some of their own unpopularity onto corporations and have the temerity to criticise them on moral grounds, whilst refusing to close the loopholes that enable those "immoral" decisions to be made. The cynic in me might even think they don't do that because those very same loopholes are a benefit to the companies that they are paid to advise on the quiet and on whose boards they sit.

As for the coffee, well truly satisfactory Starbucks/ Costa/ Nero drinks seem to be fewer and further between nowadays, especially since getting into brewing my own, but as I've said before, when I first entered the workplace in the early 80s a cup of weak instant with UHT milk from a greasy spoon was amongst the best coffee you could hope for when out and about. Having lived through an era with that dearth of choice I'm never going to criticise the modern availability of freshly made coffee in the High Street. If you think Starbucks coffee is as bad as it gets then you have clearly never tried drinking scalded Maxwell House and sterilised milk from a styrofoam cup.

Steve.


----------



## Steve_S_T (Dec 7, 2012)

Ha, cross posted with you there Ian but I think we broadly agree









Steve.


----------



## series530 (Jan 4, 2013)

Steve_S_T said:


> Ha, cross posted with you there Ian but I think we broadly agree
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sounds like we came from the same era Steve.... Maxwell house, memories !!

How about .... "for mash get smash" ..... there's another one from the past and equally as bad.


----------



## sjenner (Nov 8, 2012)

Steve_S_T said:


> I won't pretend to understand the complexities of international tax law, but I know enough about corporations to realise that blaming them for legal tax avoidance is like chastising a dog for licking his own nuts. Personally I despise the idiots in government who seek to offload some of their own unpopularity onto corporations and have the temerity to criticise them on moral grounds, whilst refusing to close the loopholes that enable those "immoral" decisions to be made. The cynic in me might even think they don't do that because those very same loopholes are a benefit to the companies that they are paid to advise on the quiet and on whose boards they sit.
> 
> As for the coffee, well truly satisfactory Starbucks/ Costa/ Nero drinks seem to be fewer and further between nowadays, especially since getting into brewing my own, but as I've said before, when I first entered the workplace in the early 80s a cup of weak instant with UHT milk from a greasy spoon was amongst the best coffee you could hope for when out and about. Having lived through an era with that dearth of choice I'm never going to criticise the modern availability of freshly made coffee in the High Street. If you think Starbucks coffee is as bad as it gets then you have clearly never tried drinking scalded Maxwell House and sterilised milk from a styrofoam cup.
> 
> Steve.


Agreed, though where I live we used to have a coffee roaster with two lovely shops about three miles apart... It was the likes of Starbucks with their corporate business model which caused them both to close... Funnily enough one of them is now a Burger King, and the other one, you guessed right... is a Caffe Nero (ugh!).


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

Starbucks came to our shores fifteen years ago - not that long ago. Before Starbucks, what did we have coffee-wise in terms of choice and quality - not that much really - certainly away from the bigger cities. Starbucks has been immensely successful in defining what coffee should look and taste like in the same way a product and the company producing it become synonymous, e.g. Hoover. Am I alone, going back to around 1998, in recalling that Starbucks was a breath of fresh air? But just like the big supermarkets, Starbucks and the other coffee chains have taken over the high street. The problem is most customers who frequent Starbucks and the others just don't know that coffee can be much, much better. Sadly, I think a proportion, and it might be a fairly large one, might not care. But for those who do care about what they drink and what it tastes like, how can they be encouraged to go into the burgeoning independent coffee shops that are springing up and, more importantly, start patronising them regularly. Warm words and praise don't pay the bills!

As for Starbucks and tax avoidance, if there are loopholes, it is up to the government of the day to plug them. But it is perfectly legitimate for a company to look at way of minimising its tax bill; it is not avoidance if it is within the rules. We are dreadfully overtaxed in the UK. The solution of any government of the day is to find more 'creative' ways to relieve us of our dosh to waste on vanity projects - think Nimrod, NHS IT database system and the rest. Income tax in the UK was introduced in 1799 as a temporary measure to pay for the war against Napoleon. Now, the state is spending 45% of annual GDP. Business and enterprise are the very things we need to get us out of this mess. As Benjamin Franklin said, 'the only thing you can be certain of is death and taxes' but I digress.


----------



## forzajuve (Feb 2, 2011)

I do think there is a difference between personal and corporate taxes though in general attitudes. Corporations will try to pay as little tax as they legally can, and why not - the system allows them to and quite frankly the financial director would be put to the sword for not helping the company save millions each year. As previously mentioned if the government really wants to tackle tax avoidance then the tax system needs a complete overhaul.

Personal tax is different as we are more personal about wanting to see a direct benefit from our taxes. I would say that in general in the UK no one sees value for money out of our tax contribution(s). However looks to the Netherlands where everyone pays a minimum 40% income tax and there almost everyone is happy to do so. Why? Because the money is well spent on infrastructure and services that the populous values and is happy (relatively) to pay for. Over here money is wasted while our health system and infrastructure is eroded away with money ploughed into ridiculously overly expensive schemes to catch headlines. We have the oldest parliament in the world and it shows, they all know how to play the game to stay in power, not how to effectively make change for the better of the country.


----------



## Big Tony (Dec 18, 2012)

Deep thread







but my ten pence worth will stretch as far as saying that their coffee generally tastes bitter, watered down and like *** ash.


----------



## series530 (Jan 4, 2013)

Big Tony said:


> Deep thread
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So it would be safe to assume that Starbucks does not contain the equivalent of "Capstan Full Strength" in terms of *** ash content then


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

Big Tony said:


> Deep thread
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sometimes, less is definitely more, big T!


----------



## Steve_S_T (Dec 7, 2012)

The Systemic Kid said:


> Am I alone, going back to around 1998, in recalling that Starbucks was a breath of fresh air?


No, I recall that too (see my previous posts about Maxwell House from greasy spoon cafes), although I always think of Coffee Republic as being the first to start the high street coffee revolution.

Steve.


----------



## jdlk (Apr 6, 2013)

As a business model, I have to admit that I admire Starbucks.

Starbucks bosses like to talk about their shops as the "third place". If you're lucky, you think of your home as a welcoming place. If you're very lucky, you think of your workplace as a welcoming place. The people who set up Starbucks thought we all needed a third place where we could relax for as long as we wanted, where we would feel comfortable. They were right.

Twenty years ago, once you finished your coffee, the cup would be whisked away. If you wanted to sit around, you were expected to buy another coffee. Quickly. Coffee shops were rarely welcoming or comfortable.

The "third place" is the essence of Starbucks. The drink is almost irrelevant. For a start, Starbucks don't serve coffee, they serve milk. Big cups full of milk, with just a hint of coffee. Because that's what most people like and order. And Starbucks is aimed at most people, not the people who frequent this forum. And it's not a cost thing -- the milk is more expensive than the coffee.

As someone who studied marketing back in the day (I was young and misguided), Starbucks strikes me as that rare creature, a pure marketing-led creation. And a successful one. It has nothing to do with coffee.

As a product, I can't stand Starbucks coffee -- it has a stale, burnt, almost rancid taste. Truly awful. The worst coffee shop on the high street by some distance.


----------



## johnnied (Feb 2, 2013)

I'm not clued up on the corporate side of things but when you walk in a starbucks, and you go to the counter, and you watch the 'baristas' and you don't decide to walk back out, you are either immensely desperate or not very educated in coffee.


----------



## Dylan (Dec 5, 2011)

I go to the Starbucks/Costas of the world more often than I would like, unfortunately there simply isn't enough independent competition for me to be able to find a better coffee when I'm out, and thats being perfectly aware that it doesn't take much to be better.

People are unbelievably accepting of bad coffee, the restaurant I now work was selling "espresso" coffee with their grinder set to about a french press grind, but people still drank it down. This is too often the case, and actually means the chain coffee shops are the best of a bad bunch, and always easy to find.


----------



## autopilot (Apr 4, 2013)

I'm not as down on Starbucks as many people around here are, at least in terms of simple coffee anyway. I find their coffee more than passable most of the time (so long as you ignore the stupid novelty things with squirty cream in etc). People have forgotten that not many years ago, haing a cup of coffee for most people meant a plastic cup of instant coffee. Now even McDonalds do 'Fresh' coffee (served way to hot and spoilt mind). I have had the odd really good cup from Starbucks, even some of the filter is good too. The downside is they think all customers want absolute consistency; to walk in to any starbucks in the world and have the exact same coffee. I'm not sure this is the case, but whatever, its had the effect of making it a really boring and generic experience, both in and out of the cup. And let's not mention the horror their Breakfast Panini is - Jesus, that thing is crime against humanity.

For me the most annoying thing about Starbucks is the horrible, forced, insincere smalltalk they force apon you, like some kind of nosey clone. Every time it's the same "how are you today? blah blah blah..." In the same irritating americanised manor. What a fricking stupid question to ask, I find it rude. Say hello and be polite, but what do they expect you to say? I remember when my brother died and I went to drive-through SB near me a couple of days later... "Hi, how are you today?" they squawked. I just sat there in silence, fighting the urge to tell them to **** off. There was an article on Radio 4 the other day about coffee shops. They had some idiot woman on who was like head of "starbucks customer experience" or something, she came across like someone from another planet. The experience is simple - I want a nice cup of coffee, not some kind of therapy from a bored 18 year old.

Anyway, yes I would also prefer an independant shop. Trouble is finding good ones. They tend to fall into 2 categories - those who are passionate about good coffee and make a good cup, or those people who have opened their own cafe and coffee is almost an after thought and they are clueless. In my area, it tend to be the later. At least I know where I am with SB, Nero etc, but its very sad to be saying that.


----------



## painty (Jul 25, 2011)

There were a few good cafes around before Starbucks, as others mentioned. E.g. in Oxford in the early '90s, A.M.T. Espresso was formed by brothers from Seattle, and served very good coffee until they appeared to expand too quickly and lose focus.

My unlikely nominee for the brand that first brought good coffee to the high street though is McDonalds. In the mid-80s, it was the only place selling proper filter coffee, and although nothing special, was fresh and properly brewed. The carafes were only allowed to stay on the hotplate for a limited time before a new batch was brewed (how often do you see anywhere even today that acknowledges that coffee stews on a hotplate?).

Ironically, it was the espresso scene that did for this simple workmanlike situation, and they introduced bean-to-cup machines to serve pseudo espresso drinks. They've now gone one step further and demonstrated that economies of scale will eventually reduce quality to the lowest that can be got away with, where shaving a fraction of a penny off the cost of a drink adds up to major savings on the vast scale of McDonalds', and indeed Starbucks', operations. So cheap beans, roasted to within an inch of their life to extract the maximum 'flavour' and then watered down as far as possible: utter dreck.

Agreed, Starbucks is all about the 'Lifestyle Choice' these days, though the filter brews (in insulated carafes) can be pleasant if made within the previous couple of hours...

Costa seem to have kept a reasonable handle on quality despite their huge expansion, presumably by staying true to original company values and continuing to invest in barista training on traditional semi-autos rather than following the quick and dirty full-auto route that Starbucks chose.

Edit - hadn't seen autopilot's post when writing this


----------



## autopilot (Apr 4, 2013)

At the end of the day, they use ok beans, they have a high turn over (making them fresh in theory), grind and use decent commercial gear. It's skilled and you can spot a tallented barista, but its not rocket science, even if the minimum wage 'barista' is going to pull a good shot from time to time, even if its by accident. No?


----------



## Don_your_hat (May 13, 2013)

I'm not particular pro the major coffee chains, although I do think that the skill of the barista can make a big difference. Unfortunately, from my experience it appears as if the likes of Starbucks and Costa don't generally give their baristas the kind of training you'd hope for (or perhaps some of the staff lack motivation although I don't wish to generalise). For instance, I swear a coffee I had from Costa in Oxford had actually been made from a spent coffee puck! It really was that bad and it was too busy to bother taking it back. Conversely, one of the Costas in Bournemouth had a very good barista a while back who really paid attention to what he was doing and made good coffee as a result. Like others posters, I generally avoid these places in favour of independent cafes.


----------

