The People’s Republic of StarbucKEA
Patrick notes a very interesting post of Adam Greenfield’s on the disproportionate amount of energy spent by our young Adbusting types on “uncooling” consumer brands such as IKEA and Starbucks. Greenfield says:
The dynamic at work in both cases is one many of us might recognize from bad relationships: when a deeply wounded person suffering from low self-esteem finally fights back against the various agents of their distress, very often it’s the closest, most sympathetic soft target they lash out at first, in defiance of all logic (or justice).
Not the absent father, but the present lover. It feels like the same neurosis at work with young activists of the No Logo stripe: never ADM, General Dynamics, Monsanto, but Nike and Ikea and Starbucks. And never mind that each of these latter firms is, to a greater or lesser degree, founded on what used to be known as progressive principles, or is to a greater or lesser degree responsive to the demands of a politically and socially conscious audience.
There are a lot of arguments that Starbucks edge out “local” coffee shops. I don’t buy them. There are places (like Open Da Night or Navarino’s bakery, for instance) that go out of their way to be friendly and serve good food, and they are very popular neighborhood institutions. Starbucks can’t even be said to compete with places like this, because (aside from coffee) they’re selling two completely different experiences.
Greenfield makes the astute point that before Starbucks “swept down from its Pacific Northwest redoubt to cluster-bomb us with franchises,” the coffee experience in America was, by and large, pretty insipid. In fact, today’s elevated consumer knowledge about coffee in general - fair-trade, shade-grown, organic, Blue Mountain, etc. etc. can be traced back to the arrival of Starbucks on the franchise landscape. Partly also due to the controversy surrounding them. But it can’t be argued - we’re all drinking better coffee today.
If any “local” places died off because a Starbucks opened down the street, they probably would have gone out of business if any stronger competitor with better coffee and a better experience opened up next door. I’ve walked into “local” arts-sceney-indie coffee shops in Montreal and been completely ignored; I’ve gotten alternatingly great and terrible service in locally-owned Starbucks-a-like chains — and when it’s been bad, it’s exactly as described in Greenfield’s entertaining little rant.
Being local’s got nothing to do with the core mission of good coffee and excellent service. The one deplorable thing about chains like Starbucks is that, despite local jobs for local people etc, a large chunk of change heads Seattle-ward.
But we’re getting our quiet revenge: we’re giving America Couche-Tards on every corner.
“You got your Slöche in my grande latte!”
“You got your grande latte in my Slöche!”
Etc.
January 27, 2004 9:39 AM
Comments
…and then shoot out a jet of steam through their gravestones? :)
Maybe Starbucks didn’t raise the bar, but they maybe helped re-establish a norm. The basic cup of coffee (I don’t go for the bizarre confectionary concoctions) there is rich, strong, and flavourful.
By contrast, the new office where I work has a coffee vending machine by VKI Technologies of St-Lambert - now owned, of course, by Van Houtte, who also (didn’t ya know!) run the Selena coffee service company.
This coffee machine was supposed to be a revolutionary advance over previous generations where you got a weak, sickly brew unfit for man nor beast. It actually works using ground coffee and a two-stroke action that brews and filters in a single step. There’s even a window for you to watch the whole process.
And the coffee it produces is *still* weak, sickly brew unfit for man nor beast.
It’s like they invented a ‘better’ coffee vending machine without understanding the fundamental fact that coffee vending machines are crap. For the money we pay, couldn’t we hire some kid to stand there and whip out cappucinos?
We are lucky to have already had a European coffee culture here in Montreal since time immemorial (stovetop espresso makers in the window at Vielle Europe, Brulerie St-Denis, Little Italy espresso bars full of elderly men dicussing Business etc.) that understands the correct temperature the water should be, that you should not store coffee in the fridge, that you grind fresh beans for each and every pot or cup.
But still, to this day, even many expensive restaurants in this town can’t serve a decent cup of coffee. Cardboardy stuff from flavour crystals in serveware tainted with soap residue is what you get. It’s supposed to be the nice finish to the meal, but it’s often treated as an afterthought.
In that respect, at least, Starbucks gets my nod for understanding the basics. They *get it*, even if they are a mass-market version of the real thing.
wrote aj on January 27, 2004 1:42 PM
Gah! and anyway, i didn’t even talk about the IKEA end of things….oh well, that’s for another post I guess.
wrote aj on January 27, 2004 4:36 PM
I can’t get all that much ire up about IKEA. After all, it’s owned by a dutch charitable foundation. Needy children will benefit from new clogs every time I purchase a poorly made, Blu-Dot ripoff design chair. At least, that’s what I assume happens. ;)
wrote optimus crime on January 28, 2004 9:41 PM
I thought they were Swedish?
Speaking of which, check out this BBC news story from 2002 about bombers targeting Dutch IKEA stores. I love that photo - they even have designer police vans…
Maybe our little condo-bomber dude was inspired by them. And maybe he’s the same guy who was leaving nasty notes on MellowKitty’s VW Beetle…
I mean, how can you be against cute, affordable design? Oh, of course, because it’s bourgeois. Ironic, since most modern, bourgeois-minimalist design stems from Bauhaus plans for Noble Worker Housing and Furnishings…
Blu Dot rock. One of these days I’m gonna go nuts and buy up most of the Design Within Reach catalogue, but until then, IKEA will suffice…
wrote aj on January 29, 2004 9:44 AM
Right, Swedish. Shit. Uh, substitute ‘clogs’ with ‘lingonberries’ in the above imaginary scene about the social good stemming from Ikea shopping.
As for the harm of Ikea? Disposible furniture is the harm. Couches, especially, with a 5-10 year maximum lifespan. But Ikea’s not the worst in this department anyway, and I’d rather hate The Brick than Ikea.
wrote optimus crime on January 29, 2004 6:36 PM
God, the Brick suck. Thanks for reminding me (and they’re now in Quebec - shudder - they’re opening a store near Carrefour Angrignon. Them and Brault and Martineau have the god-awfulest furniture I have ever seen next to Insta-Meubles, and going by the Channel 12 TV classifieds, everyone in QUebec buys their worthless formed-plywood imitation-Chippendale, Scotchgarded-puke-coloured-upholstery tripe because it’s sold on easy credit terms…not because it’s good.
IKEA’s brand shouldn’t carry the negative of disposability. It works against them. I’m surprised they haven’t consulted with someone like William McDonough to move towards sustainable, cradle-to-cradle manufacturing. They could preserve their mission of bringing affordable design to people while encouraging recycling and green materials sourcing.
When your couch dies, you should be able to bring it back to the store where they can disassemble every last part for re-use, recycling, conversion via biodegradability, etc. - and you get a credit towards the replacement.
I mean, just look at IKEA’s physical stores alone. If the STM isn’t gonna do it, IKEA could build their own privately-operated light rail line between downtown and Ville-St-Laurent. (In the UK, they have their own shuttle bus service, as we saw in Bristol.) They could put a green roof on that big metal shed and save on cooling costs in summer, stick up some solar panels (passive and photovoltaic), even a frickin’ windmill or two…Put the parking underground and grow gardens on top, and the produce will go to the restaurant…
wrote aj on January 30, 2004 10:26 AM
word! i hereby second your motion.
on an unrelated note, i *love* the channel 12 classifieds. they’re absolutely captivating. the fact that the photo is shown seconds before the details & price makes for a fun guessing-game.
TV: Black marble-look waterbed with matching faux-leopardskin linens…
Us: $1000! $800! 750! 900!
TV: … Now for only $1100!
Us: Aw, shit.
Okay, so it’s actually far more fun if alcohol is involved, but still.
wrote optimus crime on January 31, 2004 12:02 AM
Heh heh. I think we have a concept for a new theme bar…
wrote aj on January 31, 2004 12:47 PM
About vending machine coffee being crap and your devotion to the Starbucks experience, I propose to transfer the Starbucks coffee to vending machine, we will never get the same quality but something close to it.
Anyone interested in backing me?
wrote legitimus on April 22, 2004 10:50 AM
i take issue with the statement “the coffee experience in America was, by and large, pretty insipid” … not that i disagree, *but* starbucks hardly raised the bar—they put brownies in coffee ferchrissakes!
dead italian baristas turn in their graves!
wrote maggie on January 27, 2004 12:27 PM