05 April 2007
Coffee as pretext
Buried in this Slate article, about the explosion of the green tea phenomenon, is this gem:
The unappreciated business genius of Starbucks is not charging $4 for a latte but rather giving adults permission to drink milkshakes, on the pretext that they are merely tea or coffee.Amen.
Labels: 8 am dessert, Starbucks
¶ 11:54 AM 0 comments
30 March 2007
Starbucks update
I know, you're probably all waiting for the big roll out of the Starbucks branding on this site. Well, I regret to inform you all that it will not happen. The reasons why are complex and not particularly interesting, but they do involve Radiohead. As you might or might not know, Radiohead was rumored this week to be signing to the Starbucks music label. However, Thom Yorke set everyone straight:
In other Starbucks news, BusinessWeek has a must-read: "Saving Starbucks' Soul." Remember my 8 am dessert hypothesis? I think this supports it:
And on a different tip, here is probably the funniest, most amazing piece of comedy ever involving Starbucks: Improv Everywhere's "The Moebius":
"Radiohead are currently in the studio working on their next record," singer Thom Yorke said in a statement. "They are not negotiating a new record deal with anyone, and will not even consider how to release their new music until the album is finished. The rumor that they are about to sign with Starbucks is totally untrue."I am here to also declare that the rumors of Cicero Jones signing on with Starbucks are also "totally untrue." Yes, I do admit that I was also the central figure perpetrating those rumors. However, they were just that: rumors. I will not even consider how to release my blogged content until it is totally finished.
In other Starbucks news, BusinessWeek has a must-read: "Saving Starbucks' Soul." Remember my 8 am dessert hypothesis? I think this supports it:
On Apr. 3, Starbucks launches a pair of confections called Dulce de Leche Latte and Dulce de Leche Frappuccino. A 16-oz. Grande latte has a robust 440 calories (about the same as two packages of M&M's) and costs about $4.50 in New York City—or about three times as much as McDonald's (MCD ) most expensive premium coffee. Starbucks Corp. (SBUX ) describes its latest concoctions, which took 18 months to perfect, this way: "Topped with whipped cream and a dusting of toffee sprinkles, Starbucks' version of this traditional delicacy is a luxurious tasty treat."The article goes on to discuss the process of turning Starbucks from a coffee mecca into morning-time ice cream shop, and the CEO's desire to bring it back to its roots. Good luck, buddy.
And on a different tip, here is probably the funniest, most amazing piece of comedy ever involving Starbucks: Improv Everywhere's "The Moebius":
On Saturday, March 22, 2003 Improv Everywhere agents created a living moebius strip in the Astor Place Starbucks. Seven undercover agents meticulously repeated a five-minute slice of time for twelve consecutive repetitions. Starbucks employees and patrons were frightened, confused, and ultimately entertained as they found themselves stuck, without escape, in the middle of a time loop.Go check it out, and imagine what you would do if this happened at your local Starbucks.
Labels: Starbucks
¶ 9:18 AM 0 comments
20 March 2007
Starbucks Annual Meeting: Calm Down, Mr. Investor
Tomorrow Starbucks' Chairman Howard Schultz will go before shareholders at the company's annual meeting. Starbucks shares have lost 20% since last November and there is some unease about the company's direction. This, of course, puts me in a bit of a weird position. Though I am on their payroll, and thus would like them to continue to operate with soaring profits, I cannot help but get a bit of satisfaction knowing that I am at least partially responsible for this decline in share prices. Clearly, some of the things that I've pointed out on this blog have snowballed into large-scale concerns shared by industry analysts. I have not been asked to address the shareholders tomorrow, but be assured that Cicero Jones will have a full response right here.
In a related note, the Starbucks branding will be applied to this website within the next two weeks - the contract is still being finalized and I don't want to do anything until it's all set in stone.
Also one final note: the article I linked to above says that McDonald's coffee beat Starbucks in a recent taste test. This is no surprise. McDonald's has good coffee, you should try it. You might think I am being sarcastic, but I am not; it's amazing what a little animal fat can do for the taste of your joe.
In a related note, the Starbucks branding will be applied to this website within the next two weeks - the contract is still being finalized and I don't want to do anything until it's all set in stone.
Also one final note: the article I linked to above says that McDonald's coffee beat Starbucks in a recent taste test. This is no surprise. McDonald's has good coffee, you should try it. You might think I am being sarcastic, but I am not; it's amazing what a little animal fat can do for the taste of your joe.
Labels: Starbucks
¶ 9:20 AM 2 comments
14 March 2007
All Starbucks, all the time
The (kind of) non-stop Cicero Jones Starbucks coverage has been a resounding success. Unprecedented amounts of comments, several emails, and lots of interesting discussion. So, I am quite happy to announce Cicero Jones will now be going All Starbucks, all the time!
I spoke yesterday with Starbucks' Senior Vice President of Blogger Outreach, Juan P. Valdez (they co-opted him several years back) and the company has graciously agreed to sponsor this blog. What does it mean? Well, some badly needed cash for me. And also, within the coming weeks this blog will be reincarnated as the STARBUCKS cicero jones VENTI BLOG. We will be hosted on the Starbucks servers and will also be offering a two for one coupon (limited time only) for a double macchiato caramel latte spectacular explosion of flavor (as it's known in Japan). I should also note that this does not mean I will stop being critical of their brand - apparently, my criticizing them is actually good for their business, and they would like me to continue. Their only request is that I blog about them after having had a large (ok I know that's not the right word, but I'm a maverick, what can I say) Starbucks coffee.
On that note, here is your daily Starbucks news round up:
I kid you not folks, they have actually launched a record label, called Hear Music (click the link of you don't believe me). I did a quick look through the site to see their new releases: it appears all of their artists are quite old, and I am concerned that if they were to drink this coffee the caffeine might kill each and every one of them. Which, come to think of it, would probably just help record sales. You gotta love those guys, always thinking of the next big thing. Oh, and their first real "target" to actually sign to the label: none other than the hippest man in music, Paul McCartney.
Back in 2000, when a Starbucks opened up in Beijing's apparently significant Forbidden City, people thought it was the end of the world. In fact, they were right: George Bush was (s)elected President of the USA, the Kyoto Treaty was torn to shreds, several wars were started, and American Idol was born. Now some member of the Chinese parliament has submitted a bill to revoke their license to operate there. That's nice, but last time I checked, Starbucks had better access to the Chinese premier than the parliament did.
I spoke yesterday with Starbucks' Senior Vice President of Blogger Outreach, Juan P. Valdez (they co-opted him several years back) and the company has graciously agreed to sponsor this blog. What does it mean? Well, some badly needed cash for me. And also, within the coming weeks this blog will be reincarnated as the STARBUCKS cicero jones VENTI BLOG. We will be hosted on the Starbucks servers and will also be offering a two for one coupon (limited time only) for a double macchiato caramel latte spectacular explosion of flavor (as it's known in Japan). I should also note that this does not mean I will stop being critical of their brand - apparently, my criticizing them is actually good for their business, and they would like me to continue. Their only request is that I blog about them after having had a large (ok I know that's not the right word, but I'm a maverick, what can I say) Starbucks coffee.
On that note, here is your daily Starbucks news round up:
I kid you not folks, they have actually launched a record label, called Hear Music (click the link of you don't believe me). I did a quick look through the site to see their new releases: it appears all of their artists are quite old, and I am concerned that if they were to drink this coffee the caffeine might kill each and every one of them. Which, come to think of it, would probably just help record sales. You gotta love those guys, always thinking of the next big thing. Oh, and their first real "target" to actually sign to the label: none other than the hippest man in music, Paul McCartney.
Back in 2000, when a Starbucks opened up in Beijing's apparently significant Forbidden City, people thought it was the end of the world. In fact, they were right: George Bush was (s)elected President of the USA, the Kyoto Treaty was torn to shreds, several wars were started, and American Idol was born. Now some member of the Chinese parliament has submitted a bill to revoke their license to operate there. That's nice, but last time I checked, Starbucks had better access to the Chinese premier than the parliament did.
- And the BIG BIG news: FREE STARBUCKS THIS THURSDAY FROM 10 AM to 12 NOON!!!!!
Labels: bad coffee, free stuff, Starbucks
¶ 8:54 AM 1 comments
05 March 2007
"I think hating Starbucks is almost as cliche as loving it"
Such was the comment received on this post, in which J-lo and I discussed Starbucks and its intent to destroy the world as we know it.
First of all, yeah, I agree. For those of you who watched the video included in that post, Bryant Simon, the Temple professor who is writing a book on Starbucks, talked about this. Essentially Starbucks has come to symbolize what a lot of people think is wrong with America. Back in the Mythical Old Days, people used to buy their cup of coffee from a local coffeeshop, a place where: a) they enjoyed good conversation and community; b) knew their money was going to support a local establishment; and c) the coffee actually tasted good, was not superloaded with caffeine, and did not eat a hole through their stomach lining.
We all know this transition away from the local and to the global has various causes. It has plenty of negatives, many of them very serious. It also has a wide array of benefits (you like having weird Brazilian fruits in your smoothies? me too). Of all of these various causes and effects, very few are directly related to the Starbucks brand itself.
You know, there's a new joke that is kicking around in my head that I think would apply here. It is this: Two Americans are walking around in Red Square, in Moscow. They see an enormous line of Muscovites, several hundred meters in length. One says to the other, "This is terrible, look at all of these people waiting in line, what is this for, just to see the embalmed Lenin? Surely communism is on the rise again and we are all doomed." The other, slightly more aware, says, "Friend, don't worry, communism is deader than ever. Capitalism is thriving. How do I know? They're actually all in line for their morning latte from Starbucks."
In that, you can see the generalization: the spread of Starbucks is instantly associated with the liberalization of markets and with old ways fading away, for good. So, in saying, "I hate Starbucks, I don't drink Starbucks, Starbucks is evil," we are actually saying, "I reject the future, with all of its robotic tastes and globalized identity."
I do not feel as strongly as some may on this issue. I do not drink Starbucks, except in situations in which there is no realistic alternative. But my principal objection to Starbucks is not, in fact, something very "macro" or global. Instead, it is as local as possible. Their coffee absolutely sucks.
Very few Starbucks fans that I know actually go in there and say, "One cuppa coffee please." Really what they are doing is going in and ordering desserts. Desserts that are socially acceptable to have at 8 am. As I suggested to my pro-Starbucks friend recently, his ordering habits are more akin to stopping by the ice cream shop for a sundae than they are sipping a nice homebrew joe on a Sunday morning. In fact, Prof. Simon makes the argument that Starbucks itself serves as a sort of reward ritual, whereby people get in rhythms of "treating themselves" on a daily basis.
So, going back to the comment that spurred this post: yes, love it or hate it, Starbucks has grown to exist not only on every block in your city, but also in the rich land of metaphor.
First of all, yeah, I agree. For those of you who watched the video included in that post, Bryant Simon, the Temple professor who is writing a book on Starbucks, talked about this. Essentially Starbucks has come to symbolize what a lot of people think is wrong with America. Back in the Mythical Old Days, people used to buy their cup of coffee from a local coffeeshop, a place where: a) they enjoyed good conversation and community; b) knew their money was going to support a local establishment; and c) the coffee actually tasted good, was not superloaded with caffeine, and did not eat a hole through their stomach lining.
We all know this transition away from the local and to the global has various causes. It has plenty of negatives, many of them very serious. It also has a wide array of benefits (you like having weird Brazilian fruits in your smoothies? me too). Of all of these various causes and effects, very few are directly related to the Starbucks brand itself.
You know, there's a new joke that is kicking around in my head that I think would apply here. It is this: Two Americans are walking around in Red Square, in Moscow. They see an enormous line of Muscovites, several hundred meters in length. One says to the other, "This is terrible, look at all of these people waiting in line, what is this for, just to see the embalmed Lenin? Surely communism is on the rise again and we are all doomed." The other, slightly more aware, says, "Friend, don't worry, communism is deader than ever. Capitalism is thriving. How do I know? They're actually all in line for their morning latte from Starbucks."
In that, you can see the generalization: the spread of Starbucks is instantly associated with the liberalization of markets and with old ways fading away, for good. So, in saying, "I hate Starbucks, I don't drink Starbucks, Starbucks is evil," we are actually saying, "I reject the future, with all of its robotic tastes and globalized identity."
I do not feel as strongly as some may on this issue. I do not drink Starbucks, except in situations in which there is no realistic alternative. But my principal objection to Starbucks is not, in fact, something very "macro" or global. Instead, it is as local as possible. Their coffee absolutely sucks.
Very few Starbucks fans that I know actually go in there and say, "One cuppa coffee please." Really what they are doing is going in and ordering desserts. Desserts that are socially acceptable to have at 8 am. As I suggested to my pro-Starbucks friend recently, his ordering habits are more akin to stopping by the ice cream shop for a sundae than they are sipping a nice homebrew joe on a Sunday morning. In fact, Prof. Simon makes the argument that Starbucks itself serves as a sort of reward ritual, whereby people get in rhythms of "treating themselves" on a daily basis.
So, going back to the comment that spurred this post: yes, love it or hate it, Starbucks has grown to exist not only on every block in your city, but also in the rich land of metaphor.
Labels: bad coffee, Starbucks
¶ 8:00 PM 5 comments
27 February 2007
A Coffee Conundrum
by: J-lo
Although Cicero nor I are advocates of Starbucks and the coffee they produce, I felt I should share this piece from another blog that discusses Howard Schultz's, chairman of Starbucks, own personal conundrum. When Schultz began Starbucks back in '87 he had a vision of a coffee shop similar to those found in Italy and meant to broaden social experiences and the feeling of community. Unfortunately, as most of us are aware, that is no longer the case for Starbucks.
Unfortunately for his company, Starbucks is doomed to become a disgraced coffee empire (40,000 stores) that colonizes even those countries where coffee is produced - but then again I could be wrong considering the growing number of Starbucks loyalists. In my opinion though, it is truly a tragedy.
UPDATE (from Cicero): For those who are interested in this, I have some good YouTube viewing. Bryant Simon, a professor of history at Temple University, has spent several years visiting Starbucks all over the world and studying how they draw people back for more and more. You can read more about his work in The Guardian. This is his presentation to the recent Taste3 Conference in San Francisco:
Although Cicero nor I are advocates of Starbucks and the coffee they produce, I felt I should share this piece from another blog that discusses Howard Schultz's, chairman of Starbucks, own personal conundrum. When Schultz began Starbucks back in '87 he had a vision of a coffee shop similar to those found in Italy and meant to broaden social experiences and the feeling of community. Unfortunately, as most of us are aware, that is no longer the case for Starbucks.
In a February 14 internal corporate memo,“The Commoditization of the Starbucks Experience,” Schultz laments how the company’s fierce expansion and efficiency measures “have lead to the watering down of the Starbucks experience, and, what some might call the commoditization of our brand.”Interesting how a vision to strengthen community and share the experience of coffee with customers has become a parable of the tragedy of the commons. My simple suggestion for poor Mr. Schultz is that he spends an hour in one of his metropolitan stores, "experiences" the coffee, and lastly judges for himself if the environment and the customers are truly "communal". Maybe then he will realize his vision is a failure and his coffee cannot even compare to something offered in Italy.
Unfortunately for his company, Starbucks is doomed to become a disgraced coffee empire (40,000 stores) that colonizes even those countries where coffee is produced - but then again I could be wrong considering the growing number of Starbucks loyalists. In my opinion though, it is truly a tragedy.
UPDATE (from Cicero): For those who are interested in this, I have some good YouTube viewing. Bryant Simon, a professor of history at Temple University, has spent several years visiting Starbucks all over the world and studying how they draw people back for more and more. You can read more about his work in The Guardian. This is his presentation to the recent Taste3 Conference in San Francisco:
Labels: bad coffee, Starbucks
¶ 10:09 AM 4 comments
