Reply With Quote
Seattle's Best is a sub-brand of Starbucks.
Flavored coffee and syrups are ing gross. I drink it straight. Medium to dark roast, fine grind. Espresso whenever possible. This is the only way coffee should be consumed. Pumpkin e?! that noise!
Seattle's Best is a sub-brand of Starbucks.
Then why is it so in expensive and why would it be so popular if the product is cheap and ??at Starbucks stating they care about the quality of their drinks when they use one of the lowest quality coffee bean brands available in the US. Friggin McDonald's brews a higher quality of coffee than Starbucks.
And Bose positions themselves as a premium headphone retailer, when in reality a pair of $100 headphones from several companies blow away the best headphones they make ($400).
It doesn't make any sense for them to buy top quality raw materials. 90% (est) of the people that go into Starbucks don't get a coffee. They get a chai, a frap, an expresso, a latte, or some other variation that involves large amounts of cream and sugar. Now why would they pay more as a company for top shelf coffee beans when the first thing most of their customers do is coat them with flavored ingredients?
Please explain to me why spending more money than necessary would make sense as a workable business model? Of course they are going to say they're a premium blend. That's exactly how they dupe people like you into thinking you're paying a good price for a product with a 1000% markup in their stores.
So your reasoning is that the popularity means it's good? In that case, Britney Spears is one of the greatest singers of all-time, Justin Bieber is well on his way there, the Ford F-150 is the greatest vehicle ever made by the hands of man, Transfomers 2 is one of the greatest movies ever made, and Dancing with the Stars is currently the best show on TV. That would make McDonald's the best food on the planet, by the way.
The reason it's expensive is three-fold: One, it takes a lot of money to keep a store open when your average consumer purchase is in the $6 range. Two, they like to maximize their profit margin without losing customers due to high price, and their research likely concluded that this was the maximum amount of money that they can charge people without losing a significant number of customers. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, is simply a case of marketing 101: Make a product more expensive, and the perception will be that said product is superior in quality to cheaper brands. This is the reason you can go to the store and see tiny bottles of perfume that cost $160. Perception of quality goes up with cost.
I talked with the guy I know, and he stated that there are several major coffee brands in the US superior to Starbucks, notably Inteligensia, Counter Culture (North Carolina), Zoka (Seattle), and Stumptown (Oregon). Wrecking Ball coffee is a new company and they supposedly have some of the best coffee around as well.
Think about it objectively: Starbucks has 17,000+ locations worldwide. Consider that according to Starbucks, they purchased 2,180 metric tons (4.8 million pounds) of Certified Fair Trade coffee in fiscal year 2004 and 5,220 metric tons (11.5 million pounds) in 2005. How top shelf can the quality control be for an operation like that. You're telling me that they purchased 11.5 million pounds of coffee and threw 10.6 million pounds away? Come on. It's impossible. Starbucks is decent coffee, nothing more, and nothing less. It's still a damned impressive operation, but don't fool yourself into thinking it's the best coffee on the planet.
I still don't agree with Cry Havoc. I would like to see some independent research supporting his claims. Of course I haven't provided any either. Until one of us does we will have to agree to disagree.
Nike Jordans cost a tiny amount to make yet retail for what, 200 bucks? How expensive something doesn't mean its expensive to make.
Do you guys want to explain how they can purchase 11.7 million pounds of coffee per year while only allowing the top 7% of it to be brewed in their stores? I have given ample evidence to suggest that Starbucks is middle-tier coffee, at best. I have named brands that are better, and provided reasons why Starbucks doesn't need to waste money on the top quality beans. So unless you think they like throwing money away for no reason, I'd like to know why you think they buy only premium coffee beans.
I'm not just spouting warmed-over hearsay. This is a good friend of mine who personally owned and operated his own coffee house, and did months of research about coffee quality and price. I know almost nothing about coffee personally, but I did glean something from him about quality and standards, and how Starbucks has found a way to dupe people into paying $5 for a 20 cent cup of coffee. It's genius and it's marvelous, and the fact that so many people buy into the thought (and even feel they aren't overpaying!) is a testament to how excellent their marketing department is.
Last edited by Cry Havoc; 10-15-2010 at 03:07 PM.
As cheap as the Jordan's are to make other brands are still way cheaper to make and are total . If Star-bucks was horrible coffee quality it would not be this mega-brand. Buger-King didn't make billions serving horrible Burgers..
They're fattening as all but good..
Sorry but our definitions of quality must be different because Burger King is garbage. I guess what you meant was "good enough". Companies become hugely successful for a lot of reasons - marketing being one - but its not always quality.
Marketing hype is the key and having some celebrity wear it, drink it or use it helps even if it is a terrible product.
I only get Starbucks if I'm out and about and want a cappuccino.
I like Breakfast Blends for home and Newman's Own is one of the best!
Whether or not Seattle's Best is owned by Starbucks is irrelevant to the fact that there is a difference in how green tea latte's with the same additives taste. Even the coloring is different. I know Starbucks uses a green tea powder - theirs often tastes more bitter (and requires more sweetening to be palatable) and is quite a mint chocolate chip sort of green color, whereas Seattle's Best is the color of actual green tea and not so bitter.
It's a relatively small sample size - but it's at least 4 different shops for each in three cities, so it's not like a Starbucks barista at my local is just . Random, I know. But there it is.
Is this in any important? No, but I'm stubborn. And suddenly craving a green tea latte, which I haven't had in forever.
Yes, yes, I know you're trying to show what a badass you are, but it's been clearly proven in this thread that your assertion is false.
If nothing else, I am not a got - being a heterosexual woman. And the idea of me as hipster is enormously entertaining for anyone who actually knows me.
Really, now, is that the best you've got to add to the discussion?
Here's a little bit of information I found. Not conclusive evidence, but certainly suggestive that Starbucks is of superior quality...
http://www.awf.org/content/solution/detail/3372
Is African coffee strong enough to make it in the global marketplace? Just ask Starbucks. Arguably, the best quality Arabica coffee on earth grows in east Africa’s volcanic soils – coffee so good, it is often blended with lesser beans to boost their favor. So when a new law propositioned that Kenya’s coffee growers sell their coffee beans directly to the market, AWF jumped on the opportunity. A couple of years later, AWF is helping local growers produce coffee for Starbucks.
A Boon for People and Wildlife
For the people of the Kilimanjaro and Samburu Heartlands, growing and marketing coffee in an international marketplace is a chance to secure a better livelihood for farmers, slow the destruction of the Mount Kenya and Mount Kilimanjaro forests, secure critical watersheds, protect elephant corridors and reduce human-wildlife conflict.
A Growing Partnership
AWF has been developing a partnership with Starbucks since 2002, after seeing the work the company has done in Latin America - with the C.A.F.E. Practices (Coffee And Farmer Equity) methodology for sustainable coffee production - and recognizing their strict quality standards that are sensitive to both human beings and the environment.
Since 2002, AWF has identified project sites throughout northern Kenya, adapted C.A.F.E. Practices for the region, and trained thousands of farmers to grow coffee sustainably – and to meet Starbuck’s high quality standards.
The advantage of Starbucks’ C.A.F.E. Practices is that it establishes verifiable standards for growing and milling coffee in ways that are sensitive to both people and the environment. The higher growers and producers score, the more stable their relationship with Starbucks and wildlife can become. Eventually, farmers hope to enjoy premium pricing that is shielded from market fluctuations as well as credit extensions that will be invaluable in helping small growers develop into prosperous farmers.
A Cup of Conservation
Growing and selling coffee not only helps farmers, it fosters conservation and reduces conflicts between humans and wildlife – particularly the elephants that roam the Heartlands. Elephants don’t like java, so the coffee plants create a valuable buffer zone between movement corridors and food crops. And, because specialty coffee needs shade, growers are motivated to replant forests that have been cleared for other uses.
A Unique African Blend
Elephants may not like coffee beans, but they will undoubtedly appreciate the benefits that coffee-growing brings for the wildlife and the people alike. The potential of the Starbucks partnership means that African coffee isn’t just strong – it’s powerful. So the next time you drop by Starbucks, ask for an African blend – and enjoy a taste of Africa’s economic future.
From Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbuck%27s
Beyond Fair Trade Certification, Starbucks argues that it pays above market prices for all of its coffee. According to the company, in 2004 it paid on average $1.42 per pound ($2.64 kg) for high-quality coffee beans.[99] This is in comparison to commodity prices which were as low as $0.50–$0.60 in 2003–2004.
Where's McDonald's on that list?
Real men don't eat quiche.
Real men don't wear that little phone earpiece while walking around.
Real men don't drink flavored coffees and certainly don't drink anything with the words-chai, e or latte in them.
If you are guilty of this--and you know who you are....
Turn in your man card.
Non-fat latte's with honey for me. I'm not turning in my man card either.
What is a "barista"?
Real men text and use a computer while driving.
Starbucks bought them a few years ago.
Struck a nerve there,huh?Real men text and use a computer while driving.
Turn it in...c'mon now...
turn
in
your
card.
If I'm out and about, I stop at McD's for an Iced Latte. If I'm at home, it's a triple shot latte made with coffee beans from Costco.
I haven't been a SB regular in years. It makes no financial sense for someone paying down debt.
The really, really funny thing here? I earn ~ 60% of our income and both my husband and I would agree that I work harder for that money. Hmmmm.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
