Do You want a Shot with that?
Oct. 20th, 2010 08:33 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Starbucks, in hopes of reinventing itself, is talking about brewing (or having brewed) beer and wine that it would sell in its stores. Bad idea. Alcohol and Coffee makes for a rather awake drunk as my brother (Doc Whoopee) would attest to having the Java Café party at ChattaCon oh so many years ago.
If they do it, it is going to be very limited since each and every one of the stores would need a separate liquor license and in many states, they would have to hire someone who has a license to sell alcohol which is not the same as the license to pour in some states. And there are still dry counties in some states in the US where there are Starbucks.
I think this is a brilliantly bad idea. Starbucks is concerned because their numbers are down. Part of it is the economy because one of the first things you drop when funds are limited are the 5.00 to 10.00 coffee drinks. Also they now have competition with McDonalds and their McCafe. Dunkin’ Donuts has been pulling from them for a while. Now it seems that there are plans for both Burger King and Wendy’s to try to tap into our need for caffeine.
Starbucks tried to reinvent themselves in Seattle with new stores that didn’t look like a Starbucks. I don’t think the experiment went well. They are trying to sell their ambiance and brand to a country that is just not buying it.
Did anyone at corporate stop and think that maybe, just maybe, there are TOO MANY STARBUCKS! These things are everywhere. In our area we went from one to seven in less than a year. Their problem is saturation has been reached and then the recession made it easy to walk away.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I don’t patronize Starbucks that often. Once a month, if that, as the end of a sushi dinner with the girls. I only buy Starbucks coffee if it is my only shot at real caffeine. I find it a bit more bitter than I like my coffee (French roast is my usual blend). I have bought their various teas and their coffee like drinks are not bad but rather calorie laden.
However I think that adding alcohol to the mix is an incredibly bad idea on corporate’s part. Between the permits and the new insurance that they would need to carry, I don’t think they can afford it in the long run. Starbucks has branded themselves rather nicely. There has to be another way to improving the brand. Oh, may be not make your coffee so bitter it peels paint might be a start.
I am grateful for strong coffee but not necessarily obnoxiously strong coffee.
If they do it, it is going to be very limited since each and every one of the stores would need a separate liquor license and in many states, they would have to hire someone who has a license to sell alcohol which is not the same as the license to pour in some states. And there are still dry counties in some states in the US where there are Starbucks.
I think this is a brilliantly bad idea. Starbucks is concerned because their numbers are down. Part of it is the economy because one of the first things you drop when funds are limited are the 5.00 to 10.00 coffee drinks. Also they now have competition with McDonalds and their McCafe. Dunkin’ Donuts has been pulling from them for a while. Now it seems that there are plans for both Burger King and Wendy’s to try to tap into our need for caffeine.
Starbucks tried to reinvent themselves in Seattle with new stores that didn’t look like a Starbucks. I don’t think the experiment went well. They are trying to sell their ambiance and brand to a country that is just not buying it.
Did anyone at corporate stop and think that maybe, just maybe, there are TOO MANY STARBUCKS! These things are everywhere. In our area we went from one to seven in less than a year. Their problem is saturation has been reached and then the recession made it easy to walk away.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I don’t patronize Starbucks that often. Once a month, if that, as the end of a sushi dinner with the girls. I only buy Starbucks coffee if it is my only shot at real caffeine. I find it a bit more bitter than I like my coffee (French roast is my usual blend). I have bought their various teas and their coffee like drinks are not bad but rather calorie laden.
However I think that adding alcohol to the mix is an incredibly bad idea on corporate’s part. Between the permits and the new insurance that they would need to carry, I don’t think they can afford it in the long run. Starbucks has branded themselves rather nicely. There has to be another way to improving the brand. Oh, may be not make your coffee so bitter it peels paint might be a start.
I am grateful for strong coffee but not necessarily obnoxiously strong coffee.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-20 12:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-20 01:28 pm (UTC)I tried Starbucks but it does nothing for me.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-20 12:45 pm (UTC)That is when it is needed, but alcohol added into that mix?
Such a bad idea!
no subject
Date: 2010-10-20 01:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-20 01:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-20 01:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-20 01:02 pm (UTC)I see this whole alcohol thing as an utter fail. Not every town will grant them a license (I'm sure mine won't), and for those that do...I mean, if I'm going to go out and have a glass of wine, why would I choose Starbucks?
no subject
Date: 2010-10-20 01:20 pm (UTC)And I agree, why go to Starbucks for a glass of two buck chuck which will cost you eight?
no subject
Date: 2010-10-20 01:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-20 01:19 pm (UTC)I do like those knicknames
no subject
Date: 2010-10-20 01:09 pm (UTC)You can taste the fry grease in the coffee, and that's just so nasty.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-20 01:18 pm (UTC)I hadn't yet because I didn't really care for their coffee before they tried to pretty it up.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-20 01:29 pm (UTC)Their iced coffee comes pre-mixed with cream and sugar, neither of which I wanted in my drink. So they had to put hot coffee over ice for me, and this seemed far more complex than it should have been.
After all that, I got to my office and it tasted like ghost fries. BLECH.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-20 01:30 pm (UTC)Even though I'm working at the Bux, I don't feel any particular loyalty to them. I'm annoyed about the push of the instant coffee because it's counter-intuitive (to me) to push that in a store known for fresh coffee. *shrugs*
I agree with you about the alcohol thing, it's not a good idea. We have enough trouble getting folks to leave in the evenings without adding liquor into the mix.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-21 12:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-20 01:39 pm (UTC)You can taste the fry grease in the coffee, and that's just so nasty.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-20 02:46 pm (UTC)Also, remember that Starbucks at least thinks of itself as one part coffee, one part "third place" for folk to hang out in (and order stuff). The article I read about the new stores, two tryout versions which are in Seattle, said a fair number of stores have 70% of their business before 2 p.m.. Similar to McDs et al doing breakfast, this is an attempt to get more people in the stores in the evenings (some stores are still packed then, while others are ghost towns).
no subject
Date: 2010-10-20 11:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-20 03:10 pm (UTC)*I will note that while I do go to Starbucks pretty regularly, I don't go for coffee. Sorry, Italy and our espresso machine at home spoiled me to all things coffee and I do not do coffee in any other capacity. I go for the iced tea, which is usually a little cheaper, especially if you don't get the tea-lemonades. Hot chocolate is also a weakness of mine, but that one is far more occasional.
no subject
Date: 2010-10-20 11:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-21 12:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-10-20 11:47 pm (UTC)