Starbucks in an Instant

It had been a while since I had written a blog on coffee or Starbucks and I know that some of my readers were probably suffering because of it so leave it to Starbucks to oblige me by announcing the launch of their latest coffee related venture which is certain to have a fairly significant impact on the coffee market if their early market tests are any indicator. Starbucks is probably the one company most directly responsible for unleashing the concept of coffee snobs to the mainstream. Prior to the rise of Starbucks the number of people who could tell you what the difference between a cappucino and frappucino probably ranked somewhere in the dozens and now it ranks up there in the thousands. What also set Starbucks from those of us who still do enjoy making instant coffee or brewing our own was that every cup (at least in the early days) was hand made. As soon as you ordered it they ground the beans and then went from there. In that way it made sense that they charged more for coffee since it was hand made at the time you ordered it. And there was what set Starbucks apart, it was hand made for you.

But now with the advent of Starbucks's latest product it seems that you'll be able to hand make your own coffee. Via, a small packet of instant coffee produced by Starbucks is due to be released around the world in the next year. Already being tested in Chicago and Seattle, the mini packets of instant coffee resembly small tubes of sugar served in many restaurants these days. Early blind taste tests have shown that drinkers (even those who consider themselves the snobbiest of coffee snobs) have been unable to discern which coffee is brewed fresh at Starbucks and which was stirred up just moments before being served. That just goes to prove that most people, despite liking to put on airs of being a coffee snob, that they have no clue.

Sure there are those occasional drinkers whose palate is so refined to fine coffee drinking that they could tell you from which tree in the farm the particular bean of coffee was plucked just as some wine drinkers can do the same with different bottles of wine but for the rest of us I think we're content to drink what tastes decent and can keep us awake at work when we're stuck in long boring meetings. I think the step into instant coffee by Starbucks is something that has been a long time coming but has been a hard road to cross because of the fact that Starbucks has always branded or billed itself as a place for gourmet coffee (or at least something better than McDonalds) but I think the fact that people started flocking to McDonalds and were content with 'instant' coffee drinks that were nearly three dollars less than the equivalent size at Starbucks showed the company that perhaps hard economic times can have an impact on drinking coffee.

Though I enjoy the occasional cup of coffee from Starbucks I am not that particular that I can't enjoy a cup made at home using instant grounds and hot water. Now the question that I have though is whether I will find the taste of Via instant grounds so superior to something like Taster's Choice or Folgers that i'm willing again to shell out more money for fewer servings. I'm not a complete cheapskate when it comes to purchasing but neither am I foolish enough to spend on a luxury more than my dollar's worth. On average you can get a bottle of instant coffee for around $9 or $10 at the most in a lot of places. For about $10 I can get 12 servings (or mini packets). A bottle can probably give you twice that many number of servings, so once again the question comes up whether or not you have money to burn on somewhat of a luxury.

Starbucks has been struggling to find itself for sometime now. They had branched out (a bit oddly I might add) into the quick foods market at one point offering up sandwiches and lunch options (again for a much higher price than the average grocery store) and now in light of the fact that so many coffee drinkers are going to places like McDonalds or Dunkin Donuts for a cup of coffee. I suppose that if prices again came down or that the taste and caffeine high produced by Starbucks products was high enough to win back some drinkers then they could start winning back some of the market shares that they have lost as the markets have gone up and down like a ship in rough seas. I personally hope though that the company isn't looking to invest in something that will ultimately cause them to lose even more money. We shall see.

To Drink or Not to Drink

With the amount of conflicting information being put out there by doctors, scientists and researchers, it's no wonder that many of us out there are bordering on insanity when it comes to figuring out what's good for us and what isn't. The latest? Well it's a subject that's fairly near and dear to my heart and something that many people have accused of being my fallback subject when I have nothing else to blog on but there's just something about coffee that interests me and that keeps intriguing scientists as well. The latest study indicates that consumption of coffee may be beneficial in warding off the effects of Alzheimer's Disease.

Tests done on lab rats (does anyone else find it funny that tests of potential effects to humans are most often conducted on rats?) showed that memory was positively affected with the introduction of the rat equivalent of 500 miligrams of caffeine. What this meant was that inflammation of the brain which typefies Alzheimers was staved off and memory improved. Now of course the proof of this was that the rats probably kept hitting the button for more food rather than the button that would shock them with a 'mild' electric charge but the principle still applies nonetheless. Regardless, I think it's probably both a good and a bad thing that this result came out.

It's good because for many of us coffee devotees it's one more thing for us to point to and say "Ha! Coffee is good for you." while I think it's bad for what it's potentially going to lead to. Most people who frequent Starbucks or a similar coffee chain will probably be able to tell you that amount of coffee you usually get at such places is well in excess of what you'd get in a normal coffee mug. That being said, we are probably consuming the equivalent (if not more) of the required dosage of caffeine to see these effects. What people often don't think about though is the fact that in doing so, they are also probably increasing the amount of fat they consume.

What do I mean? Well most drinks at Starbucks can be high in terms of fat content and caloric content if you go with the 'default' ingredients. This can include whole milk, whip cream, various syrups and accoutrements which serve to make the coffee tasty but also serve to bump up the amount of bad things in the coffee. I'm not saying that people shouldn't indulge in such drinks but I can already hear people who have gained tremendous weight arguing that they were drinking coffee because doctor's said it could help stave off Alzheimers. Then these same obese coffee drinkers would in turn sue Starbucks for millions in health endangerment simply because they didn't label their drinks or coffees with the calories it contained or how much fat it has. Not that most people look at these labels anyways but that's another matter.

So then what's the solution? Simple. Everything in moderation. Most anything out there is good for you in small controlled quantities but it's when we start abusing these quantities that we start seeing negative effects. A few years ago I remember that scientists came out and said that popcorn was good for you. People then started consuming record quantities of popcorn at the movies or elsewhere. What the doctor's then had to do was caveat what they said. They meant plain popcorn that wasn't doused in butter or nacho cheese or loaded with salt. It wasn't too long after that that the same doctors released a study that said excessive consumption of 'bad' popcorn could lead to negative health effects. Again it came down to abuse of a good thing. I suppose in a few more weeks or months we'll hear of another study that shows that while coffee helps stave off some effects of Alzheimers it helps promote ulcers. Won't that be wonderful?

An Instant Save?

All ends of the political spectrum are finally coming out and admitting it. The economy is in a recession and actions need to be taken to turn it around. Whenever the nation has been in a recession, one sector that has at least suffered some sort of blow has been the so-called luxury goods sector and in recent years, that has come to include franchises such as Starbucks. Now Starbucks is probably still a wise investment simply because they are a well-established entity in the market but with the way things are going, unless they streamline their approach in the market, they may soon go the way of so many other large corporations in recent days; and that way is belly up.

For the last year or two, Starbucks has been seeking a way to refine their place in the market. In the face of competitive coffee coming from McDonalds and Dunkin' Donuts as well as smaller enterprises, Starbucks (which has virtually over-saturated the market) tried to expand their reachback into new territories such as breakfast foods and lunch options but neither of those two options did very well. I think part of the problem is that television has also changed. What do I mean? Well if you recall, back in the mid to late-90's, shows like "Friends" and the like often showed young people hanging out at coffee shops and these days that trend has diminished somewhat.

Tack on the fact that now costs have gone up, joblessness has gone up and people are worried as to whether they'll have enough money to stay in their homes means that they begin cutting back on the niceties. Now I will be the first to admit that I need at least one cup of coffee per day. It's not so much for the caffeine kick or anything as much as it is in the ritualistic method of preparing a cup of coffee and using that time to focus myself on what I need to do for that particular day. Perhaps not everyone takes coffee to that level of importance but still, it is something that has an important place for most people. Yet most of us aren't that choosy.

I will admit to being a snob when it comes to certain things but coffee isn't one of the top things on my list. I will certainly prefer some coffees over others but if I'm able to get some coffee, that's good enough for me. The net result of this attitude (and this attitude is growing in a lot of people) is that they'll drink coffee outside the house wherever it's the cheapest. Now Starbucks has become like Microsoft in the sense that it's often the first name people think of when looking to buy coffee or even coffee grounds but with costs going up even in purchasing raw coffee beans from Starbucks, people look for the cheaper alternative. Starbucks stepped up and announced recently the unveiling of their new 'instant coffee' named Via.

Now to me the appeal of Starbucks has often been in the fact that your coffee is made to order at the time that you order it. I remember when they first started spreading around the nation and the one on campus in College Park often had a line out the door due to the fact that they would grind the beans the moment you ordered your coffee and not before. Sure the process took longer but in essence you saw where that extra money was going. Over time the process changed to emphasize speed over precision and some say that's when the products at Starbucks began to suffer but still, the customer is always right and they wanted faster service. Now with the advent of Via, Starbucks is hopeful that customers will again begin purchasing Starbucks products in order to recapture some of that coffee market share that they've long held onto.

I'm sure it will make some difference initially as many of the Starbucks faithful (I'm not sort of on the fence) will at least try out the product. I think if it is competitive with other instant coffee labels in terms of cost and quantity then it may do well but those truly die hard Starbucks afficianados who prefer to grind their beans mere moments before brewing a cup are likely to turn their noses up and continue frequenting Starbucks to ensure that they get their money's worth. Success of this new venture though would likely signal something more; that there is hope in turning this downward trending market around a small step at a time. Funny how coffee figures into that.

Catch a Falling Starbucks

After a fairly significant gap I saw a pair of articles in the news today that showed the contrasting fortunes of Starbucks and how the uncertainty of the current market was affecting the once dominant coffee giant. Not to hint that they aren't as popular as they once were but I think the market fluctuations are definitely having an impact these days. The first article I read was about how Starbucks was continuing to change up their traditional offerings by adding new items to the menu in the hopes of luring customers back.

One of the new items that is already quite popular in European and Asian outlets is their customiseable Hot Chocolate. Although some will argue that hot chocolate was already on the menu (the kid's menu... but the menu nonetheless) this will mark the first time the drink is being offered up premium style here in the states. To hear the execs at Starbucks tell it, they realized that chocolate products are still quite popular and so they would obviously want to capitalize on that popularity and offer up a premium chocolate drink. This comes in the wake of the shake up that began late last year when Starbucks began revamping their fledgling image. At one time hailed and revered as the bastion of premium coffee drinks, Starbucks had fallen prey to its own success and people weren't flocking to keep the stores operating as successfully as they once had.

I am personally of the opinion that the addition of other high priced items on the menu that aren't really related to coffee was hurting them. I remember walking in one time and seeing that in addition to the usual cakes and pastries there were now breakfast sandwiches and at lunch, regular sandwiches. Now although these are good ideas in theory, I don't think people are coming in to Starbucks with that type of food in mind and I'll tell you why. Check out the average person going in to Starbucks and they are either in their for a massive java fix or for something to sip on. I can literally count the times where I've seen someone go in and pick up a sandwich to eat. For the cost of what they were charging at Starbucks you could have gotten multiple sandwiches of similar size at McDonald's.

Granted McDonald's and Starbucks are in sort of the same but sort of different categories of food service but they offer up options nonetheless and when pocketbooks are getting tighter, no one wants to spend more on something that ultimately is an impulse item. Sure a cup of coffee is a wonderful pick me up in the morning but we are also cheap. Don't believe me? Next time you are in an office where coffee donations of a quarter are requested, check out how many pennies are in there. Some people toss in a penny to make the appropriate sound and get some coffee without paying for it. Do you really think someone that stingy is going to pay up for coffee under normal circumstances? I don't think so.

So after the market shakeup in the wake of the announcement that Congress didn't pass the proposed $700 Billion bank bailout, companies like Starbucks saw their stocks stumble lower than they had in a long time and a large part of the reason is that patronage is definitely down and the company has over-extended themselves to the point of going beyond the demand of society. I love my coffee and I enjoy an occasional cup from Starbucks but I don't mind standing and waiting for a few minutes. I don't need another Starbucks ten feet away to take care of my coffee lust if there are two people ahead of me in line.

This was the gist of the second Starbucks article I read. It seems that the company has continued to see losses in their stock value and although I firmly believe that the company is far from going under or instituting more store closings, they will likely consolidate their holdings and return to their core values which was providing good coffee products for a reasonable cost in a timely manner. That isn't a direct quote from their website or coprorate mantra but it was the attitude that I used to see when I first started going to Starbucks on a regular basis. These days such feelings are few and far between and it is possible that perhaps somewhere along the line, the mantra was left at the wayside. It's time they got it back.

Coffee and Sober Breath Please

It's been a while since I've blogged on coffee and when I saw the news article in the paper about an incident at a Natte Latte espresso stand outside of Seattle, Washington, I just had to write on it. I've written about the various quirks and 'fashions' that many coffee drinkers have about how they order their coffee or how they occupy tables for hours at a time doing nothing more than pretending to work while actually playing online games but I think this is the first time I've ever run an incident like this.

Apparently a woman entered the shop last Wednesday around 11:00 in the morning and ordered a latte. She then also asked the barista preparing her coffee if she wouldn't mind blowing into her breathalyzer so that she could start her car and get to work. Now if this was me I'd probably do exactly what the barista did and that was to refuse flat out. This response was not what the customer was expecting so she began to rant and rave and complain vociferously. She then proceeded to buy the coffee and then sit in her car and drink it. She returned a short time later and again complained to the barista that thanks to her failure to blow into the customer's breathalyzer, she was late for work in Seattle. She then left the store in a huff and drove off.

Needless to say the barista called the authorities as it was likely that there was an intoxicated woman driving the streets so when the police caught up with the customer, they asked her if the story was true. The customer (who had apparently sobered up by now) reported that the story was false and that the barista was in fact the rude party and was refusing to help when the customer indicated that she was having car trouble. When the police asked why the barista would then tell the police such an odd and 'false' story, the customer indicated that the 'little girl' barista was lying because 'they do that'. The police did not press charges but did follow up by contacting the state licensing office so I would assume that to mean that they probably suspended the customer's license as the only reason I can think of for asking a barista to blow into a breathalyzer is because she was too drunk to do it herself.

It's funny how the agreived parties can often attempt to turn the tables on those who do the right thing and attempt to lay the blame on the innocent. I remember a case of a woman who had numerous moving violations and was in court one day to answer to a judge why she drove past a school bus which had it's lights on and was disembarking students. The defendant explained that she had to go to the bathroom really badly and that she didn't care that the students were in the way... she had an emergency. Be that as it may, you're not helping your case when you interrupt the judge by explaining that you had to pee as that woman apparently did. Needless to say the woman's license was suspended. I certainly hope that this was the case for this woman as well. At least she'll be awake with that latte when the judge hands down his verdict.

Walk Farther to Your Local Starbucks

I guess the day has finally come. For years it seemed that Starbucks was going to continue its rapid-fire growth until finally there would be a Starbucks literally every five feet. We were getting close to that point now in most major metropolitan areas. Go into any major city on the east coast and you'll be inundated with Starbucks overload. One location literally feet apart for the purpose of maintaining positive coffee flow to faithful paying customers. However, the shoe began to drop when fuel costs started to rise and more and more began to realize that paying $4 for a cup of coffee that you could buy for about 99-cents at Dunkin Donuts meant an extra gallon of fuel for your car. And lets face it, if you don't have fuel in your car, you aren't getting to work and you wouldn't be able to afford that $4 latte anymore.

So what to do? Well the solution according to Starbucks is to close down nearly 600 stores that have been on their internal 'watch list' for some time due to underperformance and poor profitability. I think it's probably a good thing because as much as I enjoy Starbucks, it was getting to the point that they were having a Ferrari attitude with a Toyota product. What do I mean by that? Well obviously both Ferrari and Toyota are good but you tend to view the Ferrari in slightly higher regard due to the fact that while it is expensive, it is rare. You don't see everyone driving one to and from the grocery store so obviously, it is something well manufactured so you'll pay more for it. Contrast that with a Toyota Camry (or similar model). There's tons of them on the road and they are affordable. Now obviously if you had a Ferrari manufactured at the standard of a Toyota then you'd really wonder why you should pay for a Ferrari when you can have a Toyota at the same price (and get better fuel mileage and cargo space).

But I digress; I think it's probably a wise decision because as fuel prices continue to rise (and they aren't going to be dropping off anytime soon), people are cutting back on expenses. More and more people are carpooling. Normal things that were once considered necessities are now considered extravagances and are no longer purchased with such reckless abandon. Chief among those was Starbucks coffee. For a long time, it was the only place to get a special coffee drink fairly quickly. Now there are those who absolutely have to have a cup of coffee prepared in a very specific way. Exactly two shots of this with a shot of that, no whip, extra hot, double foam, skinny soy low fat mocha powder sugar free cinnamon grande frappucino. I think for the rest of us out there, a simple cup of coffee will suffice.

Go into any McDonalds or Dunkin Donuts now and you're liable to find the same sorts of 'basic' coffee drinks that many people would go to Starbucks for and you'll find it for a whole lot less. I think the basic difference between the two was that Starbucks always wanted to be out there and viewed as an 'upper class' coffee house that meant you were paying premium prices for premium coffee but it had degenerated over time in order to speed up the process. I remember that when you ordered coffee early on when the chain was expanding, they would grind the beans right then and there. Now they use pre-ground beans. I can do that on my own too. Why should I pay more for it? I can get the same thing at McDonalds for about a fourth of the cost.

The company's philosophy had become that you shouldn't have to wait or hesitate to find a Starbucks, there should always be one very close to you so that you can fulfill your cravings immediately upon the start of the impulse. As a result some locations ended up being visited more often than others. I have been in some where it had been so long between customers that the baristas were able to sit down and do their homework and not realize that I had walked in. Perhaps this move to cut down locations and rein the focus back on the customer will be a good thing. I guess the only downside is that we'll have to wait for a bit before walking into one of the remaining 12,000 Starbucks locations. Look at the brightside though, at least the extra walk may help you save a few extra gallons of fuel.

Free Coffee...

What's the best price for enticing someone to try something new? When it's free of course. At least that's the idea behind Starbucks latest coffee concept. For a half hour today, the 8th of April, from 12:00 PM to 12:30 PM EDT, the coffee giant will be offering up a free 8 ounce cup of their newest coffee blend, the Pike Place Roast. Now I've made light of Starbucks efforts in the past to get customers back to their good graces and some concepts haven't met with much enthusiasm and I'm not sure how successful this one will be. Sure you're bound to get lots more customers, especially when you're giving away something for free, but it doesn't necessarily mean that those customers will keep coming back for more.

The reason I say this is because on average, a cup of premium blend coffee is costlier than a regular cup of coffee at most other places (including Starbucks). Unless one is a coffee fiend (and I will admit to being a coffee drinker but not a discriminating coffee fiend), there is probably no difference between a cup of premium roasted coffee beans and the cheap stuff. So unless this new roast is so addictively good, people are still going to think before investing in a cup of coffee. I think a lot of it comes down to the economy. Now it's probably very cliched to blame declining coffee sales on the state of the nation's economy but one can't help it. When consumer confidence is down as it largely is right now, financial advisors (be they websites or actual people) recommend curbing extravagant spending. One of the first on the list is almost always cups of premium blend coffee.

Like fuel, most people don't require premium stuff to function properly. Sure there are benefits to having something slightly more expensive but in the end, is it really that big a deal? I don't think it is. Now I have frequented Starbucks for a number of years and I still go back and have my usual choice of drinks. I rarely (if ever) vary from that routine as I think most customers are wont to do. I mean if you are someone who goes to Starbucks regularly (or semi-regularly) then ask yourself, don't you go in there for something you already want and enjoy? So then do you really need some other coffee product to entice you to come in? Chances are you aren't going to be drinking the new blend anyways so what's the point?

Even if you go in to get the free cup of coffee, are you really going to get that cup of coffee and then order something else on top of it? Lots of people complain of having the jitters when drinking too much coffee so after drinking an 8 ounce cup are you going to think it a good idea to have another cup even though it's your triple venti no-whip, double shot soy milk skim mocha vanilla caramel machiato? If you're already caffinated by the free cup of coffee I doubt that there will be much coherence due to the fact that you'll be talking so fast, no one will understand you to begin with. While I admire Starbucks for attempting to revamp their image in the wake of declining sales, I think until the economy improves, their efforts are going to be hindered by the fact that most people will still view coffee as an optional luxury rather than a necessity.

Ending WiFi Connectivity

The Federal Communications Commission announced today that effective at 8:00 PM EST, WiFi connectivity across the United States will effectively be ended. Although there had been rumblings about this for quite some time, it wasn't until late last month that the FCC began showing signs of going along with the proposals that had been put forth by members of the Airline industry and coffee houses across the United States. It seems that a joint commission from the two industries had lobbied hard for the end of WiFi simply because they were tired of dealing with customers who demanded better service while in airports and coffee shops.

Members of the airline industry reported that in the years since WiFi connectivity was first introduced to airports, it's become increasingly difficult for non-WiFi communications to occur due to the dearth of signals crossing the airwaves in airports. There are reports that many of the delays on airlines aren't due to overbooking or loss of gate space for airlines but simply becuase terminals which the airlines use to communicate passenger information across the areas of the airport are being overwhelmed and are experiencing so much interference that confirmed seat assignments aren't reaching the gate area and so overbookings are occuring. Additionally, because current laptop batter capacities are currently not good for more than a couple of hours, many travellers take to plugging their laptops into wall outlets in the airport which means there are less for the people at the airport to use.

At coffee houses around the country it is much the same scene. Many patrons complain of the fact that coffee houses around the nation are turning into de facto offices. I mean think about the last time you went to a coffee house and couldn't find a place to sit because of tables being occupied by patrons using up the entire thing in order to surf the internet or do research for something related to school or work. Managers of coffee houses across the nation have stated that they have seen a drop off in customer patronage after the advent of free wifi in many locations around the country. Coffee houses also report that many customers complain of the double standard that seems to be applied to customers depending on how much and how long they appear to be spending at the coffee house. Students and teenagers who come there for a place to hang out report that they are often thrown out after some time for loitering while others who are doing nothing more than mooching off of free WiFi at the same coffee house can sit for hours and hours.

Beginning last year, the airline industry and coffee industry began working their way into Congress and began calling for the ban of WiFi connectivity outside of normal office spaces. Although hesitant to deal with the issues that will likely stem from this unilateral move, the FCC with backing from Congress has kept this debate relatively quiet and any reports that have surfaced were lost in the ongoing Presidential race. It is likely that there will be calls to rescind this new rule and all officials have agreed that WiFi capability will not be immediately removed from airports, it will be disabled for the time being. It is assumed that after January 2009 when the new President enters office, the debate will come to the forefront again, but in the meantime, by later this afternoon, most airports and coffee houses will no longer be WiFi capable. To quote one leading Congressman familiar with the issue at hand, "April Fools".

Starbucks: Going Back in Time

It's been a while since I wrote a blog on Starbucks. I'm sure my brother was quite disappointed by that fact; so when I was scanning the headlines I noticed that Starbucks was listed. In having read what the article and all the other news stories regarding Starbucks were about, I decided to write about it. If you'll recall (at least those of you with a love of coffee... in particular of Starbucks Coffee) last month, all the stores nationwide were shut down in order to 'train' their employees on how to make coffee. It seems like a ridiculous idea but it makes sense once you delve a bit deeper into what the company is hoping to do.

As it is, Starbucks is now getting stiffer competition from stores like McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts. These long established chains have also started offering up premium coffees at sub-premium prices. Now about ten years ago I probably would have argued with you about the fact that Starbucks had a different essence to it since coffee was ground, prepared and served right before your eyes. That was part of the allure for many novice coffee drinkers. Pair that with the popularity of "Friends" where the main characters hung out in a coffee shop almost all the time and there you had the perfect reason for many other aspiring Friends-esque people to want to do the same thing. As time went on, the chain grew by leaps and bounds (and we're talking Brobdignagian steps here) and soon the focus went from providing individualized service to providing coffee quickly and efficiently. In order to meet those requirements, Starbucks went the way of McDonalds and started having things pre-prepared.

Previously the big factor for Starbucks was that the coffee beans they ground were freshly ground, usually just moments before you ordered your cup. When demand increased, they couldn't keep pace any longer. Not that they didn't have enough stores but they believed that they had to be able to get coffee into the hands of the consumer faster than any of the competition. Hence you have a Starbucks outlet practically every thirty or forty feet. In New York City I believe there's one literally every block. Costs to maintain and support these sites increased and quality began to decrease. Pretty soon people started to see that they were getting what in essesnce was pre-prepared coffee (with little or no 'personal touches') that were starting to cost an arm and a leg.

These factors helped McDonalds get their foot in the door and now they are wiggling quite hard to open it farther. This is why Starbucks has been trying various methods meant to get the focus back on the coffeehouse experience and away from being perceived as a McDonalds-like experience of get your coffee and get out. But how does one signal these changes to consumers? Regulars probably already knew about it but what about the average Joe who stops in for a cup of Joe every once in a while? Simple. Do something that draws a lot of attention. Shut down all stores nationwide for a day. That certainly garnered attention and certainly gave customers something to ask about when stores re-opened the next day. Think about it. You probably did discuss this event with your friends or colleagues because there was undoubtedly someone who was affected by this turn of events. That one event helped make Starbucks significant again (if for only that one day).

Now that people were talking they could know that the reason was to help stimulate improvements in the stores and the products they sell. Will all this effort pay off for them? I'm not sure. I don't think the problem with Starbucks ever was their product, rather I think it was the patience and preferences of us customers. There are those who have to have their coffee prepared with about as much detail as James Bond's original vodka martini recipe. Rather than providing more places to find your coffee, I think if the chain had maintained focus on providing quality products, they would have done well. Their current course of action appears to be aimed at justifying their higher costs and making their 'elite' image stick with consumers. It will probably work but those of us who have been loyal customers from the beginning. Whether it brings back old customers or lures new customers remains to be seen.

Torturous Starbucks

During the first and second World Wars as well as during the Korean and Vietnam Wars, there were always attempts to make the front lines appear a bit more like home. I can only imagine the comfort soldiers fighting far from home must have felt in seeing something symbolic of where they had come from. For the soldiers operating far from home in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's no different. In fact, compared to those older conflicts, there is greater chance of finding some comforts of home not on the front line but close enough. Restaurants like Burger King and McDonalds and Subway have been operating front line outlets so that soldiers can have some of their favorite foods while defening our freedom. But food isn't the only thing; they're getting Starbucks Coffee too. And Starbucks is raising a few eyebrows of late.

Starbucks is not only operating in areas like Iraq and Afghanistan (as pictured above) but at Guantanamo Bay (or Gitmo as it is sometimes called) in Cuba. For those who may not be aware (where have you been hiding?) Gitmo is the location of the interrogation centers for many captured or suspected terror suspects being rounded up all over the world. It is the center of controversy not only here in the United States but abroad as well. Accusations have been flying back and forth as to whether or not the site has been used to torture prisoners or not. There has been a long-standing debate over what constitutes torture and what constitutes the right to protect the country from further attacks on the scale of September 11th. I'm not really here to discuss the legality (or lack thereof) of these questions but rather to bring light to why Starbucks is coming up in this topic at all.

For many people (myself included), there was a general unawareness of the fact that there was Starbucks located at Gitmo. Not that it would make that much of a difference to me since I am not going to Gitmo anytime soon. Still, given the fact that it's there and the fact that Gitmo has been the center of the 'torturing suspects for information' debate, many are beginning to wonder why interrogators didn't try something as simple as offering suspects a cup of coffee and kindness in an effort to get them to talk and provide information. It's a plausible method but one that is uncertain to yield results. I'm not an interrogator nor have I ever interacted with anyone on Gitmo so I can't say with any degree of certainty as to why this method wasn't tried. But still, I don't think that this topic should have that great an impact on what goes on at Gitmo.

The question comes from statements by the FBI where they indicated that they were able to get answers without resorting to "torture" so why then did the CIA have to resort to using it? I think part of it stems from what many of these groups and individuals have stated about their views of Americans and our country in general. Many of them view our consumerism and behavior to be boorish and uncouth and they view anything American as being a source of scorn. In the view of some, by accepting food or 'bribes' from institutions such as Starbucks, you are likely to be seen as accepting exactly what you claim to scorn and this would be unfathomable. To stoop down and accept something like that would go against what they stand for. Then again if the suspect has nothing to do with terror, he's as likely to spill his guts for a venti caramel latte as he is by being tortured. At least it would be a way of seperating the chaff from the wheat. Oh well, I guess Starbucks can now add "interrogation tool" to their list of accomplishments.

Suddenly a Lot Less Starbucks Abound

Seems that newly returned Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is already making headway in his efforts to return Starbucks to the head of the coffee chains. With newer 'threats' in the coffee market like McDonalds and Dunkin' Donuts, it's hard not to be worried; especially when you are charging nearly double what the competitors are for half the amount of coffee. Schultz has already started taking steps that are meant to return the coffee giant to its roots and make it more competitive in comparison to newer coffee market entrants. In a nutshell, Schultz is looking to reduce the number of stores being opened in order to cut down on canibalization of neighboring stores; there will be more emphasis on returning to a coffee selling approach, and there will be a reduction in non-coffee items being marketed by the company.

It's interesting to see primarily because I can see some similarities between what McDonalds has been trying in response to Starbucks and what Starbucks is trying in response to McDonalds (and others). For example, Starbucks gained popularity with the young because it promoted a non-alcoholic alternative for the young out there. Though kids love McDonalds, the corporate policy is to not encourage loitering in their locations (unless accompanied by parents) and so kids needed another place to hang out with friends besides the mall. Starbucks often became that location. Being popularized by shows like Friends and such, hanging out in coffee houses was a trend that came over from Europe and has found new roots here. McDonalds was quick to react and after a few test stores which were converted to more of a 'coffee house' type of decor, the redecoration boom began and now many McDonalds are looking like swankier not-so-fast-food fast food places. A change for the better; and in an effort to gain customers back. And you know what? It worked.

McDonalds still has an unwritten policy (or so it seems) on excessive loitering by customers but it's not as pronounced as it once was. They have found that people who linger are more likely to continue buying. Starbucks attempted at one point to enter the breakfast food market as well and began selling breakfast sandwiches. The only problem was that like the coffee, the sandwiches were costlier than the competition. One can argue that you can't get the same quality of sandwich at McDonalds as you could at Starbucks but then again, how many people are that choosy? People who have such high standards probably don't frequent either of the places anyways so what's the purpose? If Starbucks was hoping to land customers based on the prestige factor then they put their eggs in the wrong type of basket. I never tried any of the sandwiches at Starbucks and though they looked good, I just couldn't stomach paying as much for one sandwich as I would pay for three at McDonalds. Call me cheap or fiscally conservative but I know I'm not in the minority.

Starbucks was a big draw during the dot com boom; everyone was someone when they were seen with a cup of Starbucks coffee in their hand but without it, they were seen as just an average joe on the street. Or that's what everyone like to believe. When the market was good, spending on extravagance items like Starbucks shot up through the roof. More demand means a greater need for coffee locations. More locations means less wait and greater income (or so the theory was). Now that the economy is slightly shakier and investor and consumer confidence is a bit lower, people's willingness to spend on items like a $5 cup of coffee suddenly drops and that is when McDonalds came in to try and steal Starbucks thunder. They are doing a decent job of it too.

For good or for bad (depending on the image they are trying to portray), McDonalds has a reputation for being a place to get a decent meal for relatively low cost. I won't deny that I have had McDonalds on occasion (sometimes more than I should) and the fact that my dollar gets me a lot more there than at other places is a motivating factor. Sure I can have my cup of coffee at Starbucks (which I still do and which I still enjoy) but when I'm hungry, I know I'll get more to satisfy my hunger than just a cup of coffee with some side items. I think most people look at it that way. Starbucks was losing focus on its original concept and that was the fact that they were offering a product that was seen as higher end than the rest. I think when the market started getting with Starbucks locations, the image went from unique to McDonalds-like. It might not be a bad comparison but people began to see it as a generic place rather than something to be appreciated. I know I did. I'm hoping Schultz is able to return the company to some level of its originality.

The Fall of Starbucks?

I remember in high school English courses my teacher describing the heroic epic and how it usually plays out. The hero discovers his path and then eventually takes it reaching a height before falling and then redeeming himself. Take a look at any of the major works out there which can be considered heroic epics and you'll see that this is the general flow of such stories. It's funny that it could also be applied to the retail world and specifically to Starbucks as well. Now I won't call the story of Starbucks a heroic epic but it does have elements that lend themselves to some amount of drama and intrigue and with the latest happenings with the company, there is a chance for it to take an even more dramatic turn in the near future.

As I've often said in my older blogs, Starbucks is becoming so ubiquitous in some parts of the country that you can't not walk into one. The chain which began modestly in Seattle has exploded into a worldwide phenomenon that has changed the way many people spend their leisure time out of the house. Coffee houses have been the norm in Europe and other parts of the world for many years but until Starbucks came on the scene here in the States, the coffee house was seen more as a place for beatniks and the like. Starbucks helped change that image forever and became a cultural icon for a new generation that appears to get it's fix from java as opposed to endless cans of soda.

Starbucks started out at a time when there was no other competition like it. They offered up various combinations and permutations of coffee that very few places (outside of fancy fancy restaurants) could provide. I doubt that most Americans knew what a latte was until Starbucks made it a common utterance around the nation. Being so specialized, it wasn't any wonder that so many people simply accepted the high prices that Starbucks charged for their coffee. To use a comparison to cars (one of my other favorite topics) Starbucks could be compared to a Ferrari. It costs a whole lot more, it's not necessarily practical but for a time it is a welcome escape. Coffee from other places (McDonalds, Dunkin' Donuts, and even gas stations) may be infinitely better but the fact that you can get it double shotted with no whip and soy milk is what makes it appealing to lots of people. Starbucks is the equivalent of shopping at Nordstrom while every other coffee out there can be compared to shopping at Target. Sure the things are similar but it's more about prestige.

Well with the economy going the way it is, people are looking more for cost cutting rather than reckless spending (which is a good thing). Despite urging from the Federal Reserve and Wall Street for consumers to spend, it's kind of hard to do so when you don't know when the other shoe will drop and the market may take another minor nosedive. How does this affect Starbucks? Well, they have literally exploded across the nation which is good but their prices continue to climb which is bad. Now places like McDonalds and such have started offering similar (though not as 'lovingly made') coffees in their stores in an attempt to woo back customers who would otherwise be sitting in a Starbucks store. And their attempts are working too. Their target? Parents.

Why would a parent make a stop in Starbucks before making a trip to McDonalds to get food for the kids when you can pick up a hazelnut coffee in the same place as the food? I mean it's great and all that Starbucks offers food but how many people have you actually ever seen eating something in a Starbucks? They generally go in, grab some coffee and then get out. I have only ever bought food from Starbucks a handful of times myself. I can probably even tell you what I bought each time if I stop and think about it. Starbucks is also starting to get worried about these types of facts now too. You can tell when they are firing the CEO and bringing back the man, Howard Schultz, who originally started the Starbucks boom. They are hoping that the 'magic' he brought to help grow the company into the giant it is today is still with him. It might be a case of too little too late.

Starbucks is great, I still can't get all the same coffees that you get there at other places. I enjoy the atmosphere the music and most of all the people that generally occupy such places. Now I won't say I go there only for the ambiance or company but I do go there because though I'm not a hardcore coffee coniseur I am cognizant enough of what i like and what I don't. Having had some of the coffees at McDonalds, I am impressed but I find it a bit lacking when all that is done to make their specialty coffee drinks is to squirt syrup with water and then pour over ice. Starbucks may be more expensive and do much the same thing but there is a difference. Starbucks actually grinds their beans and brews the coffee they use in their mix. It's a minor thing but enough to make a world of difference in flavor. Starbucks has never advertised this fact but has left it up to consumers to assume on their own they way they assume a Ferrari is a better car than a Scion. Still, not everyone can afford a Ferrari and if Starbucks doesn't get the lead out and increase their sales and decrease their costs, they may find themselves going the way of DeLoreans.

Key Issue for the Next Presidential Election

The upcoming Presidential election for 2008 marks the first time that campaigning and debating has started so early. Nearly two years before the actual election, many candidates had already declared that they were planning on announcing their candidacy. Candidates have come and gone and past hopefuls are now forgotten thanks to inadvertent comments regarding maccacas. With a dozen or so viable candidates from the major political parties, it's hardly any wonder that political fanatics are excited over all the debates and discussions that have resulted from having so many people running for President for so long. There are lots of issues out there that will directly affect the lives of Americans but apparently none is more important lately than how they take their coffee.

Yes, there is a new survey out that was distributed to the candidates in which they were asked to describe how they take their coffee. Some drink it black, others drink it with cream, some use artificial sweeteners and some, due to religious beliefs, don't drink it at all. Whatever their preference, I'm amazed to think what coffee has to do with anything remotely related to politics. I am wondering whether there are truly voters out there who are looking to relate to a possible future President based on their preference for coffee? Supposing I'm a rabid tea drinker, does that mean that I'm not going to vote for anyone other than the Green Tea... er... Green Party candidate? I think that voters are attempting to find something they like in the current crop of candidates because quite frankly, none of them has really stirred so much interest in anyone. Now that we are a little less than a year from the next election, candidates seem to be pulling out all the stops in terms of getting face time and recognition from the voting public.

I remember a time (and mind you I'm not that old) when candidates would discuss the issues and not their issues with other candidates. I understand enough about politics to know that until a single nominee for a party is announced, there will be attempts within the parties by members to get their name out in front so that they get the nod to run for President. So until that glorious day we will be privy to endless hours of discussions on whether someone's had too much experience, too little experience, no interest, no knowledge, no religion, or no coffee. If we are getting to the point now that we can't go into a Starbucks and order a cappucino without it becoming a potential campaign trail destination then we're well and truly in trouble. I remember when people used to kid that Bill Clinton loved to go to McDonalds to eat, not just to schmooze with the customers.

There are so many important issues out there and in all the debates I have seen over the past few months, there is no real headway being made in any of them. All the political pundits and experts out there seem more interested in finding faults or foul-ups by candidates or to tear down their image so that the true nature of the person is revealed. Rather than describing their plans for the future of the country, they are more interested in discussing how they are better than their opponents. Not only that, they are more interested in trying to convince us of why their answer to a question (which they rarely directly answer) is better than the answer provided by their opponents.

Still I must say I'm surprised at the relative brevity of some of the answers provided by the candidates regarding their coffee preferences. I would think that some of them would have launched into a long, drawn out discourse on how coffee is valuable to the future of our nation and how it is up to each and every person out there to know that coffee is important for our future. They could have launched into debates once again. I mean when I first heard about the poll I was half expecting someone to come out and castigate Mitt Romney for not partaking in coffee due to the teachings of his Mormon religion. I figured some candidate would use that to explain how Romney couldn't possibly make a good President since he couldn't drink copious amounts of coffee required by the Office of the President to function!

And given the political correctness running rampant these days, I'm amazed that some of the candidates referred to their preference for black coffee in just those terms considering that there is an African-American candidate in the running. I'm surprised because there is usually some idiot out there who will see this as an implied slight against Barack Obama and use it as a basis to harken back to the days of slavery and how African-Americans are still paying for the mistakes made against them in the past. See? Coffee truly can be a political maelstorm of 'hot issues' if one truly chooses to dig deeper and analyze something to its absolute limit. I'm hoping that perhaps someday in the future, after the primaries are done, that the eventual candidates for all parties can finally start discussing issues that pertain to the future of our nation. I honestly don't care if someone prefers their coffee with or without cream. I'm looking for a President, not a barista at Starbucks.

Testing the 'More Starbucks Less Waiting' Theory

Most of my readers know that I'm a frequent coffee drinker and that Starbucks has been one of my destinations for quite some time now. I go there every so often during the week just to sit down and have a freshly prepared cup of coffee while listening to XM radio that is often blaring in the room. In the DC area, it's next to impossible to go very far without running into another Starbucks and as I've written in the past, it's hard to understand the reasons why there would be a Starbucks across the street from another which is merely down the block from yet another. Well, according to the corporate theory, it's so that those looking for a cup of coffee won't have to wait very long to sit back and enjoy it. So I recently decided to put the theory to the test.

Sure everyone who is a relatively frequent visitor to Starbucks has a farvorite location of barista who makes the coffee. I'm not so much of a coffee junkie that I get frazzled if the person making my coffee isn't as good as the usual barista but I do like my coffee to be prepared in a timely fashion. If you visit some locations, the line can be out the door when you get there but within a few moments you'll have your coffee in your hand. Common sense tells us that. But Starbucks' philosophy is that if you just go down the street a ways (generally not very far) you can find another location where the line is probably shorter or maybe even non-existant. I went to Tysons Corner Mall the other day and given that I live so close to the mall, I visit frequently enough to know that there are two Starbucks locations within the mall itself. That too not far from one another.

The first is probably the original and that's the one next to Macy's on the ground floor. Being in the center of the mall it is frequently the target of coffee thirsty consumers who are looking for a quick boost before continuing on their shopping sprees. Most days, unless you are there during working hours in the middle of the week, you will find a line snaking out the door to both order coffee and to pick up. Though the baristas work at a freverent pace to get the coffee to you as quick as they can, the demand often outpaces the producers so it takes time. Seeing that was the case, the chain (and mall) allowed for the opening of a second location farther inside the mall near the newer extension that opened over a year ago. This location within the mall (closer to the Barnes & Noble end) is larger and has more seating yet is not always that full. I guess what they say about real estate is true, 'location, location, location' is everything.

Once when I had been on a shopping excursion with my mom I went into that one and ended up waiting in line for ten minutes to place my order and then another ten waiting to pick up my order. Granted it was a busy weekend that we found ourselves in the store but still, the total wait of twenty minutes left us hungering for our coffee. On a more recent visit to the mall, I passed by the same location and noticed a line again snaking out the door. Deciding to test the theory I walked a little farther along to the newer location and found a minimal line (of two people versus ten) and was out the door within ten minutes if even that long. So perhaps the theory that more Starbucks means less wait does mean something but my question still remains in the other regard about Starbucks and that is do we really need that many locations?

In the past I've written about how in some cities there can be multiple Starbucks locations located within a building let alone on a block and the theory behind that goes that someone looking for a quick fix of java while working on the 20th floor of a high rise shouldn't have to go all the way to the lobby to get a cup of coffee. The descent to the tenth floor is a long enough wait. That strikes me as being a little too extreme. If someone is that ravenous for some coffee all the time then they definitely have some sort of addiction and that needs to be examined rather than catered to. For the rest of us, coffee is like a break or a distration to help pass some time. In the office I have a cup of coffee not because I need a quick boost or crave the caffeine but because it helps my pass some of the time during the day when I go to get a cup of coffee or brew a fresh pot. By eliminating some of the time I would be waiting at a Starbucks means less time for my non-smoker's break.

Killing for Coffee

As my brother would say, "it's been another week so it's time for a blog about coffee.... the hot button issue on this website." Well he's absolutely right. This latest story comes to you from New Haven, Connecticut where apparently patrons at a Dunkin' Donuts are irritable in the mornings before they have their coffee. Very irritable. Mr. Martin Forte was unfortunate enough to find out just how irritable several days ago when he stood in line to place his order. Witnesses state that the line was long and that many were in a rush to get their order and go. The customer behind Mr. Forte took exception to his asking how much coffee a large cup held.

Apparently the customer was so upset that he decided to speed things up by taking a box-cutter from his pocket and slashing Mr. Forte across the neck before leaving in a huff. Thankfully the other patrons of the place didn't jump ahead in line but did manage to provide some help to Mr. Forte and take him to the hospital where he received treatment and is in stable condition. In case you're wondering, the coffee slasher is still at large and no arrests have been made at present. However, it just goes to show how impatient we are collectively becoming. I can understand the frustration that must come in the mornings when you're looking for a boost of caffeine and you're running late for work and the guy ahead of you is asking questions like, "How much coffee does a large coffee hold?" I can understand the frustration but not enough to condone slashing someone across the neck.

I have been in situations before where I've been accused of jumping in line ahead of someone (when that person wasn't even in line before I got there) or taking to long to make a transaction (I had correct change and I was determined to get rid of it). My logic says that if you're running that far behind, then why bother taking the time out to get a cup of coffee in the first place? Is this a sign of how addictive caffeine can be? I mean is it a case where coffee denial is leading to increased levels of violence? Perhaps there will be a study released in the coming days from a reputable university or research company that states, lower levels of caffeine in violent people can lead to increases in violence inducing hormones within the body. Makes sense doesn't it? There. I've just given some med student a killer PhD thesis. Pardon the pun.

But seriously, do I need to be worried about people behind me in line now too? With the state of paranoia running rampant these days is it any wonder that we are getting more and more paranoid as time goes on? I remember the days when the Soup Nazi was probably the worst person you could run into but now the customers are the ones you have to worry about. I usually know what I want when I walk into a Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts but on those rare occasions when I want to try something new, I don't want to order in fear of being beaten up or stabbed to death. I mean I hope this doesn't mean that soon we'll have metal detectors installed at the entrances to all coffee shops. Coffee is probably one of the more popular commuter drinks out there, perhaps we can convince the TSA to start patrolling coffee shops too.

Battle of the Brands

I guess the Iced Hazelnut coffee that McDonalds introduced earlier this year was simply an experiment meant to test the coffee waters. You see, the fast food giant had long since been a staple for those looking for a quick and cheap pick-me-up. Walk into any McDonalds during the evening hours and you'll often see a pack of parents picking up a quick meal for their kids before heading home. There are a few who have the regular old coffee while sitting there but these days, Starbucks has spoiled us to the point that we all want something or the other that is a blended coffee drink with various flavors and shots of things we really don't need but ask for anyways. So it was natural for McDonalds to attempt to get into the market by offering up something similar of their own.

An obvious step would have been to partner with Starbucks to offer up brewed Starbucks coffee which is good enough for some patrons, but for many, it's not the cup of coffee alone but the accoutrements that go along with it that they find appealing. Why have a large cup of coffee when you can have a venti double shot mocha cappucino? It just sounds so much more.... mature. Now the iced hazelnut coffee that McDonalds serves and continues to serve was one of their first forays into a drink not aimed at kids (like their McFlurry) and it quickly became popular. But if you've seen how its prepared, it's basically mixing the hazelnut syrup with the coffee, adding milk and shaking. Not much to it is there? The baristas at Starbucks would point out that that's the biggest difference in the quality of the coffee. And that may be true but how many actual coffee junkies are out there to tell the difference?

I enjoy having Starbucks coffee. I love it so much that I've had it in such exotic locations as London and Dubai and I continue to have it here at home. Still, once in a while there's that desire to just have a quick coffee drink that will serve as a pick me up and send me along my merry way. Despite the virtual explosion of Starbucks locations out there, unless you go at an odd time, you will end up waiting for your coffee for a few minutes. Compare that to McDonalds where even in the height of rush time, your coffee will generally be served to you within moments. I know both Starbucks and McDonalds have standards as to how quickly to serve customers but the difference is that Starbucks coffee is never pre-prepared and it takes time to create, whereas the current version of McDonalds coffee is either prebrewed or one of those squirt and shake into the cup deals. If time is a major deciding factor then Starbucks is definitely in for some stiff competition.

There were complaints from consumers about a year ago about the time it takes to get your drinks at Starbucks and I would argue that that is because the milk is always freshly steamed, the mixes made when ordered and the espresso shots freshly ground and brewed when your coffee is ordered. If the deciding factor is quality over speed then Starbucks will definitely have a leg up. In terms of locations, I'd say it's probably neck and neck as far as area saturation is concerned. You can't go too far in most major cities without running into either a Starbucks or a McDonalds. Plus the fact that you get slightly more drink for lesser amounts of money means that those looking for a quick drink rather than a drinking experience will turn to McDonalds so again, Starbucks is in for a run.

I don't think this spells the end for Starbucks but I do think that it means that perhaps someday there will be some role reversal. McDonalds is already making strides to turn their restaurants into places that people will feel comfortable lingering in and enjoying time in. Starbucks continues to push to improve service time and saturate the market even more with their products. Starbucks already has a reputation for being a slightly upscale coffee house despite the fact that it too has McDonalds size market penetration but it will need to continue to take strides to keep in competition with McDonalds if it is to survive.

Coffee Can be Good for You

Okay. So you've gone to all the right pre-schools and prep-schools. You've attended the most prestigious private schools to prepare you for following your parents and your grandparents footsteps into Yale. You graduate and you land a high-paying job. Suddenly the market takes a downturn and you begin looking for an alternative. That's the situation that faced Michael Gates Gill, who then decided to look into Starbucks as that very same alternative. Only thing was he wasn't interested in running the company. Just the milk steamer. Michael Gill went from an executive making hundreds of millions of dollars per year to taking on a job that earns him a little more than $10.50 per hour. Not bad but also not what one would expect from an executive who has Yale-credentials. I mean he can hobnob with the President for goodness sake but he probably prefers to hobnob with his regular customers.

And that's precisely what Gill claims led him to take on the job. He found the experience so enlightening that he even wrote a book on it. Now for most baristas (as the coffee 'chefs' are called in Starbucks) I think writing a book on the side is something of a dream that many rarely see fulfilled. Still, how many people are really interested in reading about a kid who went to a regular high school and then decided to put his life on the right track by becoming a coffee barista at his local Starbucks? Not many. And I don't think it's the kind of story that would draw on directors like Gus Van Sant or actors like Tom Hanks looking to film the story of Gill's book in movie form. So then what is it that seems to be drawing in such fascination with the story? What about it is so unusual that publishers felt it was a story worth printing versus the hundreds of others put together by Starbucks employees?

I think the most significant factor is the fact that the person writing the story is a person of 'privilege' who really shouldn't have to take the job because of his situation. According to Gill, he was released from his position as an advertising executive for what he refers to as a younger model. That's not to say suddenly Kate Moss was brought in, but someone younger and full of 'new ideas'. Gill then decided to start his own business which didn't do as well and was subsequently diagnosed with a brain tumor. Desperate to secure a job that would at least provide income and health coverage, Gill interviewed with a nearby Starbucks and was hired on. Soon he found he enjoyed making coffee more than making ads. Though there will likely be a spate of jobs being fired his way considering he is making waves with his forthcoming book, it's not likely that Gill will leave Starbucks for 'greener' pastures in the executive world.

I think this is the perfect case of the 'grass being greener on the other side'. For many people who haven't gone to Harvard or who may never even go to college, working at places like Starbucks or McDonalds or Target are opportunities to excel and get into management roles through hard work and dedication. These people also have the potential to lead multi-million dollar corporations but because they haven't had the opportunities as some of the people in the upper strata of society, they don't get the same chances. They look on those from 'privileged' families with some degree of envy but as Michael Gill shows, perhaps it is they who are to be envied. Working in advertising, Gill was looking for interaction with people and the cameraderie that comes from working in that type of environment. And given the number of Starbucks I have been into, I can tell you that this is certainly the type of atmosphere it promotes.

Gill, whose father was a writer for the New Yorker, claims that though his father was a high achiever he probably wouldn't understand why his son is happy doing something that pays a less than half of what he was making in advertising. I think it speaks well of Gill that he is sticking with what makes him happy because in the end, that is what helps define one's career. I have worked in a variety of jobs over time and one thing I can say is that unless you work in an environment in which you feel happy and productive, you will never be happy. Do the things you love and work in a place that will foster it. Pay is an important part of the equation but as Michael Gill has shown, it's not how much you get paid, but what you do with the opportunities that are presented to you. Perhaps he got a leg up in getting his book published considering he comes from a 'privileged' background but at least he's continuing to do what makes him happy.

The Starbucks Workout

Two of my common topics in my blogs are coffee (generally Starbucks) and working out. It's a rare occasion when I'm able to combine the two subjects into one but an article I happened across allowed me the opportunity to do just that. Keeping employees healthy has always been one of the top priorities of most companies over the past few decades. This is mostly because of the rising costs of healthcare and the loss in revenue when you have an employee not able to work. In an industry like Starbucks, that can lead to a tremendous impact in terms of overall revenue. I mean if you have one barista who is so good that he can whip up three ultra skinny no-whip, extra-hot, double squirt chai peppermint lattes with one hand and then you have his back ups, if he's out sick then you've got customers who are going to wait longer for their drinks of choice. And given the number of Starbucks locations out there (especially in the United States) that means that your customers will go elsewhere to get their fix.

In an effort to reduce such incidents, Starbucks in implementing a pilot program to attempt to increase the overall health of employees and thus reduce healthcare costs and absences due to health related issues. For a period of eight-weeks, employees are being given memberships to health programs with the overall goal of increasing fitness and reducing weight. After the eight weeks are over, employees are encouraged to continue the programs on their own and the company is hopeful that the overall betterment of employee health will lead to less sick time and other health related issues for employees.

I think it's a good idea and definitely one that speaks to the concern of the company when it comes to the health and well-being of its employees. True there have been issues in the past few years regarding the rights and unionization of Starbucks employees to fight coroprate dictatorships but on the whole, the company seems to be taking efforts to ensure that the health of the company is not adversely affected. Not having worked in a Starbucks, I can't speak to the amount of stress and standing that they have to do during their shifts, but all I know is that at peak times, namely in the mornings and evenings, employees must be running themselves ragged. At other times, the temptation to indulge in their own coffee and sweet dish must be overwhelming. I mean have you seen those sumptious chocolate chip cookies they have?

Having worked in IT and in the IT-related industry, I know of the tendency for workers to end up grabbing whatever comes into their reach at moments of hunger. Generally the stuff is not all that healthy for you. I remember working in one office where trays used to be set up in the kitchen filled with quick snacks and other junk bits. The idea being that work would get so busy at times that it would be easier to grab a quick bite to keep going rather than stopping work to get something healthier from nearby restaurants. In the time that I worked in that office, I found that my overall health levels dropped and I wasn't working out as much as I used to be. Working out is an option for many, but with crazy work schedules and other impediments and distractions to time, it's not always possible to combine the two.

Starbucks is by no means the only company to implement this type of plan. There are other companies out there who sponsor contests within the company to promote working out and overall weight loss. I think these types of activities being promoted by the corporate world are much more favorable then the constant stream of celebration luncheons, birthday cake extravagances and other occasions that promote over-eating and overall health impediments.

Looking to Invest? How about Starbucks?

I recently saw that I had a comment on my very first blog that indicated I should contribute more blogs on coffee. The reader happened to think that this was a 'hot button' issue. The reader also happens to be my brother and the statement was dripping with more sarcasm than anything he usually says to me but be that as it may, I know I have a predeliction for coffee so I shall indeed step up my blogging on it. Now for the setup of today's coffee blog. So whenever someone asks me what I do, I tell them that I'm a financial analyst. Now most people when they hear that immediately think I play the stock market for a living which can't be farther from the truth.

Still, given the fact that I'm constantly pestered about advice on the market from those who don't know me well enough to know I don't work the stock market, I figure I should have some ideas in mind for when I talk to them. I mean I could fake them out with talk about small cap and mid cap investments being sound investment propositions in the long run given that the current state of the market is such that there could potentially be a downturn in the current market upturn leading to quarter yields higher than the average NASDAQ quotation on the Dow Jones Industrial index. Sounds plausible doesn't it? For the life of me I don't know what I said and any investment bankers who stumble onto this page are likely weeping their eyes out.

I don't like to see adults cry so generally I stick to things I actually do know about and go from there. One piece of sound advice that I have received from several sources is that investing in something you are familiar with is probably a smart idea. For example, if you deal in IT a lot, you know what the market standards are and you are likely to know what new technologies are up and coming in the market. You could potentially lead the investment in new technology companies that will lead us into the future. I mean take a company like Microsoft, thirty years ago no one would have looked in their direction because after all, how many average people need a computer? Now you can't go any place without seeing at least one. Those who knew the potential and the possibilities that companies like Microsoft presented were wise to invest in it and are now probably sitting back and lighting cigars with lit hundred dollar bills.

So what would I recommend people invest in? Well, oil is a given. Though the trend is going for green, there is still a lot of investment in oil to be done and you can't beat that as a basic investment but it can be an expensive proposition. What else? Well, this is a blog about coffee right? So obviously the next one would have to be coffee! Coffee is definitely something I know a bit about. I won't call myself an addict although I do need to have a cup on occasion to satisfy that psychological need to have it. With the way the market is now, it's probably also one of the safer investments out there. I mean real estate is definitely a good investment too but with the current trend in mortgages, it's a mess that is not likely to clear up overnight.

Coffee is something that makes the world work. There are scant places around the world where a cup of coffee is not being poured. Sure there are the occasional stories about how studies have proven that coffee is good for you, coffee is bad for you, coffee can kill you, or that coffee can prolong your life by eighty some years. Whatever the case, we will always need and want our coffee and so it's a fairly wise investment. Sure there is the possibility that a sudden freak storm will lead to the annihalation of the entire coffee crop in South America and so coffee prices will skyrocket but the chances of that happening are not very likely.

One could argue that perhaps it's better to invest in a company like Starbucks since they currently hold the lion's share of the coffee market. And it's true, you can't visit any city in the States without finding at least one. It's getting to the point that you can't visit any foreign country without running into one (literally) either. I can officially say I've had Starbucks Coffee in three countries now; the United States, England and the United Arab Emirates. I have completed my trifecta or hat trick if you will. For a company that went from 100 locations to over 12,400 in the span of two decades, it's not a small achievement and it speaks to the growth potential of the company. So long as there are those looking for a no whip, light foam, skim double decaf chai mocha latte, your money will never go away.

Coffee Overdose

My regular readers know that I am a coffee drinker. I have been to Starbucks often enough that I am compelled to write about it on occasion. I have also consumed enough coffee over the years to know that the caffeine kick doesn't hit me as hard as it does others. In a way that's both a good and a bad thing. It's good in that I can drink lots of it and not suffer any real ill effects but it's bad because when I'm sleepy, it's hard to find something to help give that boost to keep me awake. Fortunately (or unfortunately) that wasn't the case for young Jasmine Willis (pictured here).

Young Miss Willis was working in her father's recently opened sandwich bar in England when during the course of her summer exam studies she felt she needed a pick-me-up so she decided to have an espresso. Now anyone who is a coffee drinker knows that espresso is basically ground up coffee beans with a bit of hot water added to make it go down your throat a lot smoother. It comes in a cup the size of a shot glass but for good reason. It's the coffee equivalent of a shot of tequila but instead of bringing you down, the sudden and sharp boost of caffeine gives you a boost up. Jasmine had a shot of it and immediately felt better so she decided to have another. And another. And another until finally, she had drunk the equivalent of 14 shots of espresso. To put that in perspective, she had drunk three times the amount of recommended daily caffeine consumption in a little less than four hours.

So you must be wondering what happened right? Sure you are... otherwise you wouldn't be reading this paragraph by now. Apparently what happened next was a bit of a surreal experience. Jasmine began to suffer fits of laughter which she couldn't control and tears were streaming down her face. Needless to say she was quite jittery as well. After being sent home by her father, Jasmine awoke the next day to find she had no feeling in her lips and was struggling to breathe. After being admitted to a local hospital, doctors realized that she was suffering from an overdose of caffeine in her system. Her heart was racing so fast that it was causing palpitations.

The doctor's helped her through the situation and eventually as the caffeine passed through her system she slowly returned to normal but now she hesitates to even consider having coffee. Understandably so. I guess it's the same reaction many people have to binges of tequila and the invariable results. Still, it just proves that too much of anything is never a good thing. Although I have been known to go through a lot of coffee at times, I generally don't feel any effects such as heart palpitations. Perhaps that's a good thing. But I will admit that on days where I haven't had a single cup, I do get mild headaches that go away when I have a small dose. I suppose that's a sign that my body has become somewhat dependent on the presence of coffee in my system. Or at least the caffeine portion of it.

The case of Jasmine Willis is just more fodder for those who believe that coffee consumption in general is harmful. While it's true that coffee and tea have high levels of caffeine, it's also true that they have been known to offer good qualities also. This doesn't mean that we should all go out and overdose on it though. I suppose we have to look at our bodies like ovens in cooking. If a recipe says that we bake a cake for 2 hours at 150 degrees, it doesn't mean that the results will be the same only faster if we bake a cake for 1 hour at 300 degrees. Sure the proportion is correct but the effects may not be the same as with patience. Study time is a stressful time for most people out there. I know, I go through it now every semester, but I try to moderate my coffee input only because I fear suffering any ill-effects.

Some who have seen this and other cases like it argue that we need to put warning labels on coffee products like they do on alcoholic beverages. For example, the warning labels that tell of the difficulties people will have operating heavy machinery. I suppose a warning label for coffee could be like those commercials you see on TV which warn of the 'possible side-effects' of using their product. This often includes spontaneous bleeding, uncontrollable diarrhea, sudden loss of vision and whooping cough. Sometimes when you hear that it's a wonder that anyone uses those products as well. Perhaps if they implement this warning on coffee, people won't have to suffer the same problems as young Miss Willis. Oh well, at least she's a little wiser now. Speaking of which, off I go to get a cup of coffee.