Comments on: starbucks - “$5 for a squirt of liquid and milk” http://www.pampelmoose.com/mspeaks/2008/02/starbucks-5-for-a-squirt-of-liquid-and-milk music . media . web. culture Mon, 08 Sep 2008 08:15:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Phoenix Noise » Blog Archive » Weekly News Tunes 4 http://www.pampelmoose.com/mspeaks/2008/02/starbucks-5-for-a-squirt-of-liquid-and-milk#comment-62979 Phoenix Noise » Blog Archive » Weekly News Tunes 4 Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:34:56 +0000 http://www.pampelmoose.com/mspeaks/?p=1330#comment-62979 [...] Corporate coffee colossus Starbucks (whose deplorable absence of freshness and authenticity was recently the topic of a rant from my blogger/bassist-uncle Dave Allen) apparently owes it’s hardworking baristas over $100 million in back tips. Apparently the profit from the five-dollar ‘squirt of liquid and milk’ doesn’t quite cover the overhead of recent faux-techie-hipster attractions [...] [...] Corporate coffee colossus Starbucks (whose deplorable absence of freshness and authenticity was recently the topic of a rant from my blogger/bassist-uncle Dave Allen) apparently owes it’s hardworking baristas over $100 million in back tips. Apparently the profit from the five-dollar ‘squirt of liquid and milk’ doesn’t quite cover the overhead of recent faux-techie-hipster attractions [...]

]]> By: modemlooper http://www.pampelmoose.com/mspeaks/2008/02/starbucks-5-for-a-squirt-of-liquid-and-milk#comment-61124 modemlooper Sat, 15 Mar 2008 18:57:14 +0000 http://www.pampelmoose.com/mspeaks/?p=1330#comment-61124 I think the quality is shit for the price.They really need to rethink it all. The beans are over roasted makes for horrible coffee. The frappuccinos are a chemical mess. The only thing bux's has going for them is "convenience" and I say that literaly as the lines are ridiculous. They are rolling out free wifi which is great considering you are paying for that service with premium coffee prices. Oh new cafe near me with a $10 drip coffee on the menu!!!!! I think the quality is shit for the price.They really need to rethink it all. The beans are over roasted makes for horrible coffee. The frappuccinos are a chemical mess. The only thing bux’s has going for them is “convenience” and I say that literaly as the lines are ridiculous.

They are rolling out free wifi which is great considering you are paying for that service with premium coffee prices.

Oh new cafe near me with a $10 drip coffee on the menu!!!!!

]]> By: Link Love: 3.13.08 | Nubbytwiglet.com http://www.pampelmoose.com/mspeaks/2008/02/starbucks-5-for-a-squirt-of-liquid-and-milk#comment-60379 Link Love: 3.13.08 | Nubbytwiglet.com Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:51:02 +0000 http://www.pampelmoose.com/mspeaks/?p=1330#comment-60379 [...] 6. Starbucks: “$5 for a squirt of liquid and milk” says it all (via pampelmoose). [...] [...] 6. Starbucks: “$5 for a squirt of liquid and milk” says it all (via pampelmoose). [...]

]]> By: j ragel http://www.pampelmoose.com/mspeaks/2008/02/starbucks-5-for-a-squirt-of-liquid-and-milk#comment-58066 j ragel Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:45:44 +0000 http://www.pampelmoose.com/mspeaks/?p=1330#comment-58066 liquor. it tends to improve pretty much any beverage experience.;) liquor. it tends to improve pretty much any beverage experience.;)

]]> By: J. Wallace http://www.pampelmoose.com/mspeaks/2008/02/starbucks-5-for-a-squirt-of-liquid-and-milk#comment-58054 J. Wallace Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:00:50 +0000 http://www.pampelmoose.com/mspeaks/?p=1330#comment-58054 The best starbucks experience I ever had was at a counterfeit in South Korea called 'Bucks. Of course, in addition to REALLY good espresso, they also served liquor and had obscure films playing. heh... The best starbucks experience I ever had was at a counterfeit in South Korea called ‘Bucks. Of course, in addition to REALLY good espresso, they also served liquor and had obscure films playing. heh…

]]> By: j ragel http://www.pampelmoose.com/mspeaks/2008/02/starbucks-5-for-a-squirt-of-liquid-and-milk#comment-57956 j ragel Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:30:12 +0000 http://www.pampelmoose.com/mspeaks/?p=1330#comment-57956 I was working for the buck when they became 'wired'. Compared to the competition, they were a good year ahead of the curve on internet access- they simply made the wrong call by getting into bed with a provider (T-mobile). I'm guessing the deal was to help curb the incredible cost of supplying hardware (and it was, in it's day, a very nice set of hardware they were putting into each store). In hindsight it was an incredibly bad move. The automated machines crank out very solid product when calibrated regularly. The guidelines in the manual for checking and adjusting the machines are generally every half hour or hour. I'm guessing most baristas don't check it much though as the connection to the product is less tactile and personal on those machines. I was very skeptical of them at first but soon became quite a fan as the constant irritation to the tendons in my carpel tunnel disappeared almost immediately after switching and it was just so much more efficient. A good shot on those machines takes about 15 seconds. The baristas are supposed to be timing the shots. If you notice the shots are flying out faster they are most definitely weak. If they are much longer the espresso is going to be bitter. With those machines the subtle differences are very noticeable in the taste of the coffee. I think the main problem with Starbucks' is that it was started on the passion for finding a 'perfect' product but has since joined other big business models in it's emphasis on speed. Training in coffee history and attention to detail was a cornerstone of the early stores but I noticed as the company expanded rapidly our training became more oriented toward promotions, retail display, and pastries. I feel this is due to middle management, who's bonus is predicated more heavily on sales then on quality of service and product. Obviously blame needs to start at the top though. I will also point out that Starbucks continues to provide one of the best health care packages in the land to people who are working 20 hours a week or more. They cover 'domestic partners' and have since I can remember. In many respects Starbucks is still a model company when compared to other companies of it's market size. I'm not an apologist, I just see most haters of the 'buck' seem more focused on Starbuck's yuppie image (and now rapid rise to mass appeal) to denounce the company rather than actual objective data. mmmm. this whole discussion has made me thirsty for a cup. *heads out to Stumptown* I was working for the buck when they became ‘wired’. Compared to the competition, they were a good year ahead of the curve on internet access- they simply made the wrong call by getting into bed with a provider (T-mobile). I’m guessing the deal was to help curb the incredible cost of supplying hardware (and it was, in it’s day, a very nice set of hardware they were putting into each store). In hindsight it was an incredibly bad move.

The automated machines crank out very solid product when calibrated regularly. The guidelines in the manual for checking and adjusting the machines are generally every half hour or hour. I’m guessing most baristas don’t check it much though as the connection to the product is less tactile and personal on those machines. I was very skeptical of them at first but soon became quite a fan as the constant irritation to the tendons in my carpel tunnel disappeared almost immediately after switching and it was just so much more efficient. A good shot on those machines takes about 15 seconds. The baristas are supposed to be timing the shots. If you notice the shots are flying out faster they are most definitely weak. If they are much longer the espresso is going to be bitter. With those machines the subtle differences are very noticeable in the taste of the coffee.

I think the main problem with Starbucks’ is that it was started on the passion for finding a ‘perfect’ product but has since joined other big business models in it’s emphasis on speed. Training in coffee history and attention to detail was a cornerstone of the early stores but I noticed as the company expanded rapidly our training became more oriented toward promotions, retail display, and pastries. I feel this is due to middle management, who’s bonus is predicated more heavily on sales then on quality of service and product. Obviously blame needs to start at the top though.

I will also point out that Starbucks continues to provide one of the best health care packages in the land to people who are working 20 hours a week or more. They cover ‘domestic partners’ and have since I can remember. In many respects Starbucks is still a model company when compared to other companies of it’s market size. I’m not an apologist, I just see most haters of the ‘buck’ seem more focused on Starbuck’s yuppie image (and now rapid rise to mass appeal) to denounce the company rather than actual objective data.

mmmm. this whole discussion has made me thirsty for a cup.

*heads out to Stumptown*

]]>