Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

I disagree with you. I think their breakfast sandwiches are pretty good, far better than the McSh!t they sling at SuckDonalds. And their coffee is not burnt, its dark roast and if you don't like it, don't go. Plenty of people like it.

Have you tried the Fiesta Chicken Salad that they sell? In my opinion it's great.

I do agree that they are opening up too many stores too fast, and free wi-fi, period, would be nice. Panera has free wi-fi. But then again, Panera's have much more seating than any Starbucks I know of, and Panera enforces their rules regarding groups that are working and not eating.

Starbucks faces an uphill battle outside large metropolitan and upscale suburban. In most communities breakfast is a local experience with closely guarded experiences. If the corporate mantra is growth then they must embrace the local community instead of asking the community to blindly embrace the customs of Starbucks. It need to be a two way street, preferably Main Street. They would do well to connect with individual communities by establish a local breakfast sandwich. Try offering a breakfast pastie in the Midwest. A biscuit sandwich in the South. A classic lunch cart style Breakfast Burrito nation wide. Connecting with local farm co-ops and dairies for produce, eggs, milk would also establish them in communities.
As far as the "nuts and bolts" goes, I agree that the coffee is too roasted but I think the Espresso is perfect. I enjoy the Florentine Sandwich but am always disappointed in the run of the mill pastries. For me, the best Starbucks experience always revolves around good service. Nothing makes me happier, or sets Starbucks apart from DD or McD more than receiving my Dopio Espresso in a proper cup and saucer instead of a paper cup. If Wi-Fi were free and service was consistent I wouldn't go any place else. Make me feel like a local friend instead of Venti, non-fat, half-caf, to go.

Mmmmh...
I've tried Starbucks in France and in England (in Italy they do not have the courage to open: we like our coffee, and we like plain, but especially VERY fast!)...
I agree with your 5 points, but why not burn the coffee? I mean, you just need to lower the water temperature in your coffee machine, and bum, it's not burn any more...
So may be they can open in Italy too! I need a cosy armchair to work from!!!

Starbuck's has always been the "go-to" place for me when I'm out traveling to clients. Yah, you gotta pay for your wi-fi (which I think is chintzy) but a decent drink, cheese and fruit, and it's home for a couple of hours while I work.
One thing I've noticed - the quality of the service has gone down in nearly every store I've been in. The cashiers are generally arrogrant and bully the clients, the baristas seem perpetually confused, and drinks are constantly being "auctioned" off with many left orphaned at the counter.
What happened? Mistake? Customer gave up?
Time to get back to the basics - quality food and drink, comfortable atmosphere. It's still a home-away-from-home for us in the trenches - give us a reason to come back!

I stop by Starbucks now and then. I get coffee and that is all, everything else looks not so good. We tried their NY style crumb cake once the topping was like cement. Never tried anything food related after that and that was almost 4 years ago. The coffee does taste burnt which is why if I can stop someplace else for coffee I always do.
Panera bread is where I used to have my meetings when I met with people. Free wifi and the baked good are good. The coffee there is passable but at least its a nice little environment for breakfast or lunch.
I see the same theme as Ed, when expansion is unregulated a company's capital is stiffled, then the product itself has to be able to be competitive in the marketplace to help bolster profits. It is a formula and it never fails.
When you have Starbucks across from Starbucks on the same street or road, that is a problem. If you did not build a big enough Starbucks to handle the traffic then expand or move to another one. Running 2 units in less than a few miles of each other (or in some cases right across the street) is slamming the market and wasting capital. I also think from a retail perspective that Starbucks wastes retail space. Hugely wasted retail space. ROI (return on investment) is where you will see the Starbucks money bleed. Their books must look like a homocide.
Why is McDonalds so profitable after all this time because they do not waste one retail inch that is why. Dunkin Donuts suffered from over expansion as well and many just went out of business. We all saw the Krispy Kreme debaucle where all these units opened up sold donuts like mad and then caved from over expansion and an unfeasible, nonsustaining business model.
Ok enough retail talk. Someone needs to go in there and do some CPR on the model and the expansion. If not you will see someone else buy Starbucks, there are a lot of chain coffee contenders in the marketplace. When Starbucks units start being sold off you will know what happened.

Starbucks needs no saving. They need to take their big box corporate identity and their coffee flavored water and bail bail on the whole idea. After that, all the local coffee shop owners that they've shamelessly put out of business could open their shops again. These local owners are people who live in and care about their communities. Many of them actually roast their own beans ON SITE, not thousands of miles away in a factory. Their food is made in the store, often with local ingredients, not trucked all over the US marinating in fossil fuels along the way. If you, like me want another option, check out this link that tells us about many privately owned, respectable coffee shops around the country: http://www.ihatestarbucks.com/other_choices.php

i love how people are saying things like "support local business instead" and "why save the huge corporation?"
does everyone forget that Starbucks started as one little coffee shop in Seattle back in the day? as far as monetary success (at least until now) they are the poster child for 'making it big' for local coffee shops. i'm not saying we have to actively "save" it, that is what the CEO is paid for. just recognize that they got big for a reason, they put out a product that MANY people like.
while i do like the suggestions of "localizing" starbucks, i don't think it will pull in more business. people that are heavy into the whole 'local' thing aren't going to patronize a starbucks.

Finally, the novelty of designer coffee is beginning to wear thin. I don't care whether Starbuck's goes out of business or not. Is it any wonder that they are in financial straights? Every time you turn around there is another Starbuck's. Who the hell needs so many of the same thing on every corner? Perhaps it's mismanagement, perhaps it's over-extension. I prefer to think that the consumer has wised-up and figured out that a $5.00 cup of coffee is just a blatant rip-off. Whenever possible I try and visit local businesses.

You mean Britney isn't keeping them in business??

I think this may be one example where the little guys are damaging the big guys - Starbucks showed us that people will pay a lot of money for a cup of coffee and a scone. I live in Brooklyn - we have tons of Starbucks, but more often than not I take my lap top to one of the non-chain coffee places. They have taken the Starbucks concept, but personalized it in various ways - the food is better and the wi fi is always free! Plus, the decor is generally better. Starbucks hasn't changed the look of its stores since I started going there 15 years ago. The look is outdated and makes me feel all 90's again and not in a good way.

I just want to comment on the notion of good versus bad coffee. If I ran a billion dollar coffee business, I would not just hire coffee-heads who love great coffee. I would do what something like digg.com does with news stories, i would ask what people want. Survey them.

The thing is, you choose local shops for their coffee, but in a blind taste test, you need to be able to tell TWO things in order to really distinguish your taste preferences. You need to pick what you like. Then in a second test, drink the same samples and figure out which one was the one that you liked the first time. Because if your taste buds are that strong, it should not be a problem. (BTW Ed, that's something to try when SE does taste tests. Basically the distinction between "This tastes the best the first time around, therefore there should be zero problems picking the best again in a blind taste test, right?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIiAAhUeR6Y

In that youtube video, Malcolm Gladwell talks about the food research someone else did. (go to the 10:45 mark and he mentions it a bit). Basically a portion of the population (26%) like rich, hearty roasts when it comes to coffee. 26% is it; the rest like weak, milky coffee. This throws the good vs. crappy coffee debate out the window. People like what they like, whether we judge others to have serious taste buds or not? Different issue.

As for the stock price.. eek. It seems mostly a reflection of earning power and growth. Is sbux losing money? They exhibit a positive price to earnings ratio, which lends me to believe they are making money. They're just not making more on a year-to-year basis. No one needs a no dividend stock that has limited growth potential.

I like the local food idea, but I also think they need better style. Or maybe they need to buy some smaller chains and bring them to more cities and cater to a higher-end or a more discerning clientele that would normally go to a local coffee shop. The great thing about a chain is you get the same thing everywhere, but that is also the downfall.

I don't feel any more responsibility to save Starbucks than I would to save any fast food chain. They may have started as a small shop with great coffee and personalized service, but now I see little difference between them and other fast food establishments. The coffee is not that good -- the pastries are nothing to write home about, and the lunch offerings are nothing special. Why save a large local chain. I much prefer the small locally owned coffee houses. I prefer their food, service and coffee. I also like to support locally owned businesses.

Maybe Starbucks has gotten too big. They were great in their day, but they are much different today than they were 15 years ago.

In re Ed's generous five point plan, the Starbucks 2.0 he already imagines -- better food, free wifi, local flavor, already exists, in the guise of the local coffee shop, which still do hang on in many places. Delocator.net http://delocator.net/
is a useful way to find non-chain coffee.
That said, it all depends on context. The Starbuckses that are squatting in so many of my childhood haunts in Boston are a blight -- the Starbucks sign on Interstate Whatever in the middle of a long drive is an oasis.

People seem to be lining up for the coffee at Starbucks regardless of the taste of it (which it not to my taste).

But aside from that, as a business model (and as a part of the community, an employer in the community though one that came from somewhere else originally) I believe Starbucks offers employee benefits (medical insurance) to anyone who works there. Whereas I have not heard of many independent shops (yet, though certainly they must exist) who offer this perk to employees.

This is the reason why many of the college kids I know would prefer to work for Starbucks as opposed to working for the local indie shops.

Starbucks is not worth saving. Enough Said.

Support your local coffee roasters!

Let it die.

I'm not ashamed to admit that on the occasions I buy coffee to go I get the Green Mountain stuff from the corner Mobile gas station. The large is $1.89 and way, way better than the burnt, bitter swill that Starbucks peddles.

As someone who works at Starbuck's, this is what I think:

Starbuck's is supposed to be a "home away from home," so work on making the café areas larger, brighter, more comfortable, and less noisy. And I do think Starbuck's should provide free wi-fi. Make the store someplace that people want to hang out.

Abandon the "drive-thru." Yes, they make a lot of money for the stores that have them. But Starbuck's isn't supposed to be fast food. "Drive- Thru"s are nothing but. Plus, it's hard to have a nice conversation with a customer when the people in line start honking their car horns. The "drive-thru"'s about getting people in and out, Starbucks should be about keeping people in.

Why not offer entertainment some nights? Many coffee houses do. Just put a microphone in the café. You can bet someone will step up to it (before Christmas, one customer played her violin in the café for us. Neat, right?).

Stop making us baristas hawk new products. If someone orders a mocha despite the "gingerbread latte" posters, I'm guessing that they want the mocha. I don't want to have to say, "have you tried the gingerbread?" It starts to sound like "do you want fries with that?" McDonalds will have coffee bars soon - I doubt they'll have baristas that know you, your drink, and that will give your kid a damaged cookie (we throw them out if they break) free of charge (of course, maybe this might be Starbuck's problem).

Teach me how to use a manual espresso machine (Not to save the company. I just want to learn).

And let me say - Starbuck's does do great things for its employees. I work part time and get health insurance - and after just four months, too - which has allowed to take up some internships I never could have done otherwise. They have emergency funds for needy partners, adoption assistance, etc.

I like mom and pop coffee shops. Starbuck's virtually created their market, and it helps sustain it. Way back in the seventies, my parents drank Folgers. They had never heard of cappuccino's - now they drink Fair trade, organic coffee and grind their own beans. Mom and pop shops benefit from Starbuck's example - I know some pretty bad mom and pop shops that manage despite being surrounded by Starbuck's. And a few great ones that no doubt profit from the very same situation.

I won't pay the price. In Miami, get a cafe con leche for $1.35 or an espresso (cafe) for about 75 cents.....delicious.! Yes, the restaurans make money.

I think Starbucks coffee has a distinct aroma, like the Subway bread. It has some sort of crack cocaine reaction. That being said, I have never liked their coffee, nor the cancerous growth of the chain. While I'm sure their are not the most evil of large corporations, I wouldn't mind if they disappeared all together.

my suggestions to starbucks would be 1)train the "baristas" so they're not an insult to real baristas. 2)make the lattes, frappes, etc. less sweet (it's almost as though they're trying to hide bad coffee 3)order the pastries from local bakeries only. no more of their mail-order too-sweet ...stuff 4) free wi-fi 5)no pre-mixed drinks (frappes cannot be made from soy because they're from a pre-mix, and the "baristas" don't know how to make the drink w/o the mix).

I used to work for Starbucks and saw quite a few changes for the worse when I was there, including getting rid of real espresso machines (RIP La Marzocco) and bringing freezers into all the stores so they could all sell the same crap frozen pastries from the same crap bakery in Texas or wherever.
I think we all need to realize that Starbucks is no longer a place where you can get great coffee. It's where Americans get their sugar/caffeine/milk fix, and can feel a bit special while doing so, because the company has managed to somewhat maintain their hoity toity vibe. I feel Ed's suggestions are entirely reasonable given the direction the company has taken, and I'll bet that's just what they're going to do. Schultz said they were going to focus on international expansion, slow down building new stores in the U.S., and shut down those that aren't performing well.
I'm sure that's all they'll need to do to save the company. Those of us who reminisce about the way things used to be will have to keep doing that, because it's never going to be a great cafe again.

I really love the frapps an the holiday latte's are great..

My Dad growled at me the first time I told him I wanted to go get a drink at Starbucks. I must sympathize with him that the prices are often unreasonable--especially when you think that so much of the liquid used to make the drinks (other than milk) is WATER!!!! BUT, I still go...probably too much for the budget that I have. That being said though, I do agree with Banannah that it would be better to just support local economy and local coffee shops!!!

I've never tried their breakfast sandwiches, but I have to admit that their pastries do look good (I've never tried one though)...

I think the problem is that Starbucks is so synonymous with coffee these days--people know what the menu is like, can customize their drink, and the location of the restaurant is usually convenient. I think we, as the potential consumers of the product need to recognize what we can or cannot support. If you love Starbucks too much to consider giving it up, then support the chain. If you absolutely despise it then you never have to go. (Rocket science, I know.) Honestly, if enough people care about Starbucks, then all will be well eventually. But if trouble continues, then it seems to be a sign that its presence in society is not needed. Whatever its fate, I am certain it will be the right one. Those opposed to the outcome will find a substitution I'm sure. I know I'm making it sound more simple than it actually is.

(BTW, don't we have more important issues to worry about than the fate of Starbucks? I'm not bashing those who do care one way or the other. But I am not sure that the issue in the grand scheme is the most important thing to worry about...)

ChristineB Wrote:

4) You pay for internet at home. Why shouldn't you pay for it at a coffee shop?

-----

Because I don't pay $5 for a cup of coffee at home... that's why.