5 ms·

This is an aside, but my how far has Starbucks fallen at the hands of profit optimization. A Starbucks used to be a great place to spend time. Today the interio

by kbos87 2y ago

This is an aside, but my how far has Starbucks fallen at the hands of profit optimization. A Starbucks used to be a great place to spend time. Today the interior of almost every Starbucks is cold, beat up, and (intentionally?) uncomfortable. (In the stores where they even still have seating, which another commenter pointed out.) The quality of the product is barely a step above a gas station. On the other hand, my area has a few excellent locally owned options that are so important to me. When I think about Starbucks vs. one of those locally owned shops, it reminds me just how much a rich tapestry of small businesses in a neighborhood can transform it for the better. Starbucks had that going for a it for a short while.

willsmith72 2y ago
It seems like everyone's experience is highly localised. Even within 3km of my place I have 4 starbucks. 1 is amazing, 2 are not great, and 1 is the takeaway variant. Which one is the true measure of "Starbucks"? It's the same for local cafes too. Also what's with the "they just want to make a profit" argument going round here? Why wouldn't they? They literally have a legal duty to do so. Should we instead incentivise cafes to not make a profit?
- davemp 2y ago
  > they just want to make a profit I think the “just” is the key word here. No one is going to get up in arms over modest profits. It’s the chasing growth at all costs even when it means sacrificing what should be the core value(s) of the business. A lot of franchises just end up as soulless real-estate/marketing plays that siphon money out of local economies and compete on axis other than actual value/quality.
- ipaddr 2y ago
  That's a great way to go out of business. Just make a profit driven companies don't invest in the companies future. Starbucks had a vision now it looks to maximize short term profits while playing a real estate game.
- ETHisso2017 2y ago
  Sounds like they need to split up the brand. Customers need to have a consistent experience across locations
  - shermantanktop 2y ago
    Let’s segment this market! “Starbucks Deluxe” for the golfers and yacht owners. “Starbucks Influencer,” with pink cups and led rings at every table. “Starbucks Classic” for the retired and confused. And of course, “Starbucks Homeless” to capture the downtown vibe.
    - jerkstate 2y ago
      I think they are doing this already, I was in NYC a few months ago and saw a “Starbucks Reserve”
      - selimthegrim 2y ago
        Was the minimum size 24 ounces?
      - sampullman 2y ago
        Those have been around for a decade or so, I remember going to one in Shenzhen ~7 years ago.
      - kbos87 2y ago
        The Reserve stores are absolutely fantastic (and twice the price.) The Seattle location was the first one I had ever been to. Sadly it seemed to me like they stopped growing the concept... the one in Palm Springs is really just an ordinary Starbucks despite being branded as a Reserve, and they pulled the plug on an intended opening in Boston a few years back.
    - xarope 2y ago
      In the same vein, aren't there also McDonald's McCafe's too? Some friends have told me the coffee ain't too bad, actually. [oops, sorry, this should have been under the thread about Starbucks Reserve]
- selimthegrim 2y ago
  Some of them do have community rooms you can reserve or take a Zoom meeting in.
- rqtwteye 2y ago
  "They literally have a legal duty to do so. " Their only legal duty is to conduct lawful business.
- kbos87 2y ago
  I don't have a problem with profit motive at all, but I think it's completely valid to point out situations where it's taken to an extreme that destroys the brand or puts it in a vulnerable position, which is arguably being done to Starbucks in my opinion.
65 2y ago
It depends on the location and competition from other local businesses. The Starbucks where my parents live is nice to sit down and have a conversation with someone - it's bigger and has more space. Why? It's a small town and there isn't much competition from other local coffee shops. Compare that with the Starbucks's of Manhattan - usually very cramped, little seating, and meant to be more of a "to go" place than a place to sit down.
- shermantanktop 2y ago
  I’d assume that the extreme difference in rent is a bigger factor than the amount of competition.
  - nine_k 2y ago
    They are connected. More shops (including coffee shops) compete for the relatively well-off public walking around Manhattan, so they compete by agreeing to a higher rent, too. If you can't afford $50 / sq.ft., a few other bidders may.
  - asdff 2y ago
    For some of the locations that have been takeoutified, they used to have chairs and tables but these were purposely removed. The room is awkwardly empty so they stuff it with random chochkys like insulated mugs to fill the void.
    - kbos87 2y ago
      I think there’s some truth to the notion that they’ve done this in markets and stores where they are more likely to have a problem with homelessness and non-paying customers. I’ve seen first hand how much time and energy some Starbucks employees have to put in to waking people up who are sleeping in the store, cleaning themselves in the bathrooms, or trying to bring in a cart full of their belongings. Goes without saying (in my opinion) that it’s sad and a failing of society, but it also has to be a real problem for Starbucks.
winphone1974 2y ago
What seems weird is that with the massive number of Starbucks closures I've seen smaller indies and local chains open up in the exact same locations and somehow make a go of it- how does that work?
- kevinventullo 2y ago
  Naively, a small shop only needs to pay on-the-ground workers and direct owners who may be a subset of the first group. Starbucks has to pay the regional managers and their bosses and the shareholders, etc. Also, at the mom-and-pop, no one is screaming “Why is the fourth derivative of profit increase not higher??”
  - piker 2y ago
    Also, as with the starving artist, supply may be artificially high.
    - kevinventullo 2y ago
      I grok the sentiment, but reckon artificial is not the right word.
  - listenallyall 2y ago
    I think that is, indeed, rather naive. Starbucks has an extremely efficient supply chain which ensures its raw ingredient costs are lower than what the small shop can negotiate, even moreso when delivery to the store is factored in. After raw wages, it can also offer health insurance and benefits to its employees at significantly lower per-employee costs than the small shop. It can often get a better deal on real estate, because landlords know that Starbucks adds prestige and enables them to raise rents on surrounding units. And of course, while mom & pop have to spend money advertising to the neighborhood with flyers, direct mail, coupons, etc, the Starbucks just posts that green mermaid logo and lots of people flock to it (and often are willing to pay more for the product).
    - 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by kbos87 2y ago

willsmith72 2y ago

It seems like everyone's experience is highly localised. Even within 3km of my place I have 4 starbucks. 1 is amazing, 2 are not great, and 1 is the takeaway variant. Which one is the true measure of "Starbucks"? It's the same for local cafes too. Also what's with the "they just want to make a profit" argument going round here? Why wouldn't they? They literally have a legal duty to do so. Should we instead incentivise cafes to not make a profit?

davemp 2y ago
> they just want to make a profit I think the “just” is the key word here. No one is going to get up in arms over modest profits. It’s the chasing growth at all costs even when it means sacrificing what should be the core value(s) of the business. A lot of franchises just end up as soulless real-estate/marketing plays that siphon money out of local economies and compete on axis other than actual value/quality.
ipaddr 2y ago
That's a great way to go out of business. Just make a profit driven companies don't invest in the companies future. Starbucks had a vision now it looks to maximize short term profits while playing a real estate game.
ETHisso2017 2y ago
Sounds like they need to split up the brand. Customers need to have a consistent experience across locations
- shermantanktop 2y ago
  Let’s segment this market! “Starbucks Deluxe” for the golfers and yacht owners. “Starbucks Influencer,” with pink cups and led rings at every table. “Starbucks Classic” for the retired and confused. And of course, “Starbucks Homeless” to capture the downtown vibe.
  - jerkstate 2y ago
    I think they are doing this already, I was in NYC a few months ago and saw a “Starbucks Reserve”
    - selimthegrim 2y ago
      Was the minimum size 24 ounces?
    - sampullman 2y ago
      Those have been around for a decade or so, I remember going to one in Shenzhen ~7 years ago.
    - kbos87 2y ago
      The Reserve stores are absolutely fantastic (and twice the price.) The Seattle location was the first one I had ever been to. Sadly it seemed to me like they stopped growing the concept... the one in Palm Springs is really just an ordinary Starbucks despite being branded as a Reserve, and they pulled the plug on an intended opening in Boston a few years back.
  - xarope 2y ago
    In the same vein, aren't there also McDonald's McCafe's too? Some friends have told me the coffee ain't too bad, actually. [oops, sorry, this should have been under the thread about Starbucks Reserve]
selimthegrim 2y ago
Some of them do have community rooms you can reserve or take a Zoom meeting in.
rqtwteye 2y ago
"They literally have a legal duty to do so. " Their only legal duty is to conduct lawful business.
kbos87 2y ago
I don't have a problem with profit motive at all, but I think it's completely valid to point out situations where it's taken to an extreme that destroys the brand or puts it in a vulnerable position, which is arguably being done to Starbucks in my opinion.

65 2y ago

It depends on the location and competition from other local businesses. The Starbucks where my parents live is nice to sit down and have a conversation with someone - it's bigger and has more space. Why? It's a small town and there isn't much competition from other local coffee shops. Compare that with the Starbucks's of Manhattan - usually very cramped, little seating, and meant to be more of a "to go" place than a place to sit down.

shermantanktop 2y ago
I’d assume that the extreme difference in rent is a bigger factor than the amount of competition.
- nine_k 2y ago
  They are connected. More shops (including coffee shops) compete for the relatively well-off public walking around Manhattan, so they compete by agreeing to a higher rent, too. If you can't afford $50 / sq.ft., a few other bidders may.
- asdff 2y ago
  For some of the locations that have been takeoutified, they used to have chairs and tables but these were purposely removed. The room is awkwardly empty so they stuff it with random chochkys like insulated mugs to fill the void.
  - kbos87 2y ago
    I think there’s some truth to the notion that they’ve done this in markets and stores where they are more likely to have a problem with homelessness and non-paying customers. I’ve seen first hand how much time and energy some Starbucks employees have to put in to waking people up who are sleeping in the store, cleaning themselves in the bathrooms, or trying to bring in a cart full of their belongings. Goes without saying (in my opinion) that it’s sad and a failing of society, but it also has to be a real problem for Starbucks.

winphone1974 2y ago

What seems weird is that with the massive number of Starbucks closures I've seen smaller indies and local chains open up in the exact same locations and somehow make a go of it- how does that work?

kevinventullo 2y ago
Naively, a small shop only needs to pay on-the-ground workers and direct owners who may be a subset of the first group. Starbucks has to pay the regional managers and their bosses and the shareholders, etc. Also, at the mom-and-pop, no one is screaming “Why is the fourth derivative of profit increase not higher??”
- piker 2y ago
  Also, as with the starving artist, supply may be artificially high.
  - kevinventullo 2y ago
    I grok the sentiment, but reckon artificial is not the right word.
- listenallyall 2y ago
  I think that is, indeed, rather naive. Starbucks has an extremely efficient supply chain which ensures its raw ingredient costs are lower than what the small shop can negotiate, even moreso when delivery to the store is factored in. After raw wages, it can also offer health insurance and benefits to its employees at significantly lower per-employee costs than the small shop. It can often get a better deal on real estate, because landlords know that Starbucks adds prestige and enables them to raise rents on surrounding units. And of course, while mom & pop have to spend money advertising to the neighborhood with flyers, direct mail, coupons, etc, the Starbucks just posts that green mermaid logo and lots of people flock to it (and often are willing to pay more for the product).
  - 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]