Starbucks contributes to the standardization of our culture. Starbucks has stupid names for their drinks (small is small, medium is medium, large is large). Starbucks deserves ridicule -- as do those who blindly refer to a small coffee as "grande" or whatever. Starbucks is silly; they are silly; we all are silly sometimes. Silliness should be mocked. That is not snobbery. That is just not giving in to the silliness, the blandness, the medicority, the banality. That is, dare I say, being alert, being aware, being a human as opposed to a mere consumer.

I could not agree more----I humor myself by asking the counter person for a "medium leaded" in order to see what kind of a response I'll get. More often than not, I get the response similar to the one I get from my dog when I talk to him---Head tilted sideways appearing to to try to understand me.

edk wrote:(By the way, I buy Starbucks at the grocery store. I really think it is the best coffee you can get in a supermarket.)

Have you tried 8 O'Clock Columbian (in the brown bag, not the standard red bag)? Whole bean version is very good, flavorful stuff, not as heavily roasted as Starbucks, and about 1/2 the cost. It's usually placed on the bottom shelf, below the Starbucks and Seattle's Best -- it's worth bending down there, even if you see black spots like I do. Of course, we're talking about my personal taste, here!

edk wrote:All right. I'll take the bait. The whole concept of "snobbery" sticks in my craw. I have, on occasion, been accused of being a food-snob, a music-snob, a literature-snob, etc. I suspect that a lot of those who post on this forum or on any forum devoted to any enthusiasm have the same experience. Not long ago a "snob" was one who occupied the upper reaches of the socio economic ladder -- i.e. a member of the ruling-class. Now, it seems to me, that the accusation of snobbery is most often leveled at those who reject any element of bland or silly or just plain bad mass culture that the corporate ruling class insists we must like...

EDK: All very well put, I think, and we are in substantial agreement (though I enjoy Houellebecq with no guilt whatsoever).

I think it reasonable for D_Mouse to object to deprecation of people on account of the fact that they eat at Olive Garten and in general, I try not to do that too much (though I know too that I have transgressed at times in this regard -- mea culpa). But it is rather hard to criticise and ridicule properly institutions such as Olive Garten without occasionally getting excessively exuberant and offending those who like to eat in those restaurants. But criticising, ridiculing, deploring places like Olive Garten is in my estimation not only legitimate but necessary. The fact is, if one cares about good food and, in the specific case at hand, about Italian food and culinary traditions, then Olive Garten is an affront, an outrage even. And I don't feel bad at all about saying that they are in a rather real sense frauds in what they sell and how they present it to people who haven't had a chance to learn from more respectable sources what Italian food is about. They treat people as sources of corporate wealth, not as customers, and it is telling that just such a place uses the laughably out of place slogan about being "with family."

Starbucks is a somewhat more complex case, as JeffB discussed above (in an especially entertaining post), but it is a fact that in the food industry (as well as some others) massive expansion on a global scale does not go hand in hand with any of the qualities I appreciate; on the contrary, it necessarily negates those qualities on most if not all occasions where what is right in terms of product quality can be replaced with what is still marketable but more profitable.

There are different kinds of folks who are called 'snob' and not all are bad. Now, someone who is 'snobby' but favours certain items or practices or places etc. not because they themselves have come through experience and knowledge and reflection to feel them to be desirable for their inherent qualities but rather favour them because they wish to share in some sort of status that association with these items etc. is thought to lend, well, they're snobs and at the same time frauds. Phonies. But these days, as EDK says, people are called snobs also just because they do have taste and are discriminating and refuse to go along with the popular and/or populist trend. That's silly and in some cases really just a reflection of the critic's awareness of and discomfort with his or her own ignorance. A sort of reverse snobism sometimes.

Insofar as D_Mouse is objecting to the phony sort of snob, I agree with him whole-heartedly. But I also agree strongly with EDK's point that the term snob is these days frequently misapplied to folks who care about knowing things and about reflecting critically on what they consume; ain't nothin' wrong with that. And that's quite different from eating certain foods or in certain restaurants in order that one may be perceived to belong to some sort of imagined elite.

Antonius

Here's a link to an article about someone doing research on the cultural role of Starbucks:
http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8H16B7G0.html

cito wrote:

Starbucks contributes to the standardization of our culture. Starbucks has stupid names for their drinks (small is small, medium is medium, large is large). Starbucks deserves ridicule -- as do those who blindly refer to a small coffee as "grande" or whatever. Starbucks is silly; they are silly; we all are silly sometimes. Silliness should be mocked. That is not snobbery. That is just not giving in to the silliness, the blandness, the medicority, the banality. That is, dare I say, being alert, being aware, being a human as opposed to a mere consumer.

I could not agree more----I humor myself by asking the counter person for a "medium leaded" in order to see what kind of a response I'll get. More often than not, I get the response similar to the one I get from my dog when I talk to him---Head tilted sideways appearing to to try to understand me.

I hate it when a company makes you use their specialized language. It feels like brainwashing to me. That goes for restuarants that insist you repeat cutesy names for menu items. No, I will not order a Shove It or a Stuff It.

When I used to stay over in Honolulu a lot, I would get a Starbucks coffee every morning. The people who worked there were nice-- which almost always seems to be the case at Starbucks-- but there was one woman who always "corrected" people's pronunciation. Every time someone asked for a "venti" she would very pointedly repeat it as "ven-TAY." I wonder if anyone ever pointed out she was the one pronouncing it wrong.

Some responses.

Vervante –

"I just think that in the continuing corporatization of America, the masses who patronize a Starbucks seem like so many sheep to me"

"people spend way more for coffee that is no better than many other shops"

"and get with it attitude from frustrated writers who deign to serve you. "

"That was my one and only experience at S-Bucks (left without the coffee)."

Just to clarify, have you ever had their coffee? Because it sounds like your one Starbucks experience was to order a coffee and not actually receive it. If you've never actually tasted the coffee (and perhaps you have and I just misunderstood your post -- did you taste it and leave without it because you didn't like it), how do you know it's not any better than many other shops?

And a mere 1 visit and you're qualified to demean "the masses of sheep who patronize Starbucks?" Does that include, for example, Mike G, who posted about his Starbucks visit above? Bah Mike G, baaahhhhaahhhh I say.

"It's not snobbery; I just don't go for the Starbucks M-O."

Then why not just say "I don't go for Starbucks" and be done with it. The "sheeple" comment and all of the rest is completely unnecessary and in my opinion wholly counterproductive. Now maybe that stuff isn't snobbery, but other words I would use to describe it aren't as nice.

"And yes, there are local consequences when people flock to these highly-branded monoliths."

Fair enough. Though I note no one has pointed out Starbucks offers its employees (even very part-time ones) reasonable health care. I know people who have opted to work at Starbucks part-time instead of the local, independent shops precisely for this reason. And I also note others in this thread have pointed to situations where they prefer Starbucks to the local, non-monolith options. Big does not automatically equal bad.

And no, I am not affiliated with Starbucks in any way.


Edk –

If others have accused you of being a snob for being enthusiastic about something or even for just rejecting something, then I agree they are incorrect to do so. Enthusiasm and/or rejection does not amount to snobbery and I don't think I ever suggested such a thing. Mocking, however, or rejecting in a manner that does far more (and far worse) than express your individual preference, is a shame in my book. Again, I don't think myself immune from such things. But I sigh every time I see such behavior reinforced and even congratulated on lth. Why can't we just discuss the food without attacking or mocking people who happen to consume different items than you or me or anyone else involved in the discussion?

" So if we reject or, worse, mock, Starbucks, the Olive Garden, P.F. Chang's, Outback Steakhouse, Toby Keith, Christina Aguilera (and don't tell me she has a really good voice), Kenny G., Danielle Steele, Dan Brown, John Grisham, almost all Hollywood movies, Sex in the City and prefer Tacos del Pacifico (RIP), Casa de Samuel, Skylark, LTH, the Rainbo, Chet Baker, Buck Owens, Ted Leo, Lambchop, Alice Munroe, Raymond Carver, Michel Houllebeq (ok kind of a guilty pleasure), Ha Jin, Wang Kar Wei's movies OR WHATEVER we are snobs. Nonsense. It means we have taste. Not good necessarily good taste, but our own taste. One's taste does not make one a more or less valuable person but it does go some distance (but not the whole way) in making one an individual."

Preferring food A to B does not make you a snob, and I never said it does. Mocking people who don't prefer food A to B or who prefer food B to A, yes I think that makes you a snob. Maybe I'm misusing the word "snob" here. But again, other words I would use to describe this attitude are not as nice.

And again, it is not an attitude I am immune from. But it is one I try to avoid. It is not the sort of person I want to be and not the sort of food site I would prefer to visit and participate in.

Why do people who drink at Starbucks not have their own taste? Maybe they, like some others on this thread remember, think Starbucks tastes better than their other alternatives? And why does that mean any more than they just like the coffee at Starbucks?

"It seems to me that there is a strong current in the culture that frowns on this. We are constantly being sold the bland, banal and mediocre. That is fine as far it goes. The culture, however, seems to want us to accept this without question. If we don't we are not of the people. We are not nice. We are "snobs." I cannot accept this."

Just to clarify, I said no such thing. If you don't like Starbucks and want to drink something else, great, go for it. It's a free country and you are more than welcome to drink whatever coffee you want and eat whatever food you choose. Just as others are free to do so.

And of course you are free to mock people who happen to prefer P. F. Chang's to LTH (the restaurant). But I still think you're a snob to do so. Not because you have the preference, not because you are enthusiastic about the preference, not because you discuss why you prefer little three happiness to P.F. Chang's in minute and lengthy detail, but because you demean those who don't share your preference, absolutely yes I think that makes you a snob.


Antonius –

Fraudulent approach to Italian food aside (and that's a fair point – if Olive Garden is going to advertise any sort of authentic, representative of the actual Italian dining experience, they should be called to task if they come up short), I suspect we have very different understandings of the term "good food." I in no way think that qualities of goodness inhere in food in any sort qualitative way. And I know people who honest to goodness prefer Olive Garden's food to say, Merlo's. I don't share their tastes on these matters, and since I strongly prefer Merlo to Olive Garden I find it perplexing at times. But I don't think such people are mistaken in any way. Indeed, I don't think there is anything there for them to mistaken about. There simply is no fact of the matter there.

A related thought (in my brain anyway). The wine critic Robert Parker has insisted that when he assigns points to wines he is actually "seeing" qualities inherent in the wine itself. That Bordeaux just is a 94 point wine, in the same way that that rock has a certain density and that this book is a certain number of pages long. Parker, somewhat famously, is known for an amazing consistency in assigning points to wine. He has been given the same wine blind, at varying times (often years apart) and come up with the same points. He pretty clearly has an amazing taste memory and a freakishly consistent palate. But to me it is wrongheaded to think that Parker points are a quality of the wine itself. They are by all measures a very accurate representation of what Parker thinks about the wine. But nothing more.

I care about good food because I care about eating food that tastes good to me. I suspect you care about good food at least in part because you think certain dishes are not just more authentically, say, Italian, in a strictly descriptive way (which by the way is an area I have enjoyed reading about in your posts), but are normatively better. And I don't think it is possible for one dish to be normatively better than another. Which doesn't mean there isn't a lot to say about each dish of course.

"But these days, as EDK says, people are called snobs also just because they do have taste and are discriminating and refuse to go along with the popular and/or populist trend. That's silly and in some cases really just a reflection of the critic's awareness of and discomfort with his or her own ignorance. A sort of reverse snobism sometimes."

Just to clarify, I don't for a second think anyone is a snob for having tastes that run counter to popular culture. I don't think I ever said such a thing (and I realize you are not saying I did say so, but I just want to clarify). What bothers me is not at all "folks who care about knowing things and about reflecting critically on what they consume." But rather when folks who do eat certain foods outside the normal eating patterns of popular culture and who eat at restaurants not frequented by the average diner sit atop their lofty perch looking down at the silly masses who happen to not share their eating habits. And that is a sentiment that I think unfortunately crops up on a regular basis in lth. Certainly not every post, certainly not in every thread. But in to many posts, and in too many threads. And I wish it wouldn't. Because I think it makes lth a lesser food site.

I'm not saying lthers are eating what they eat so that they can be perceived as belonging to some sort of elite. I don't think that's the motivation. I'm saying that sometimes some posts have content generated on the mistaken assumption that they are coming from someone who does in fact belong to some sort of elite on the basis of their food and drink habits. And not an elite group who knows more about Chicago food than most people (because in that sense lth is surely an elite group of people), but an elite group because they know about good food in a way that others don't and in the way that Parker knows about how many points that wine really is.

Of course lth is free to do what it wants as a site. I don't pay a dime for the knowledge given freely and generously here. I'm just expressing a frustration. Disagree with it, delete it, ignore it, respond to it. Do as you will. I'll say no more on these matters and get back to thinking about my next meal.

Deflator_Mouse,

I appreciate your thoughtful comments and your participation on the site. It's nice to have diverse voices around; I hope you continue to post more.

The issue you have raised, of course, is not new, and I'm not sure there is any reconciliation to be found. The philosophy of taste has been tackled by greater minds than mine, and I don't believe its reached its conclusion. We all agree (I hope I'm not being too presumptuous) that individuals have taste; disagreements begin when we start talking about "good taste." Your particular point of disagreement seems to be about its very existence. While I don't begrudge you that position, I think you're right to note that it's probably not widely shared by users of this site.

For my part, I like to think good taste exists, and I like to think it mostly matches my own. I try to avoid snobbery by being quite certain of the former and quite uncertain of the latter. I agree with you that it is unseemly to insult people based on their taste, and I also agree that insulting a person's taste while at the same time not insulting the person himself is an extremely difficult task.

One solution is unrelenting positiveness, and to that end, I must confess, I think the users of this board do a pretty terrific job. The championing of the good occupies a much greater proportion of the site's energy than the declamation of the bad.

But the other solution, one which I gather you endorse--namely, to refuse to label any taste "good" or "bad" but only "mine" or "yours"--is not only inconsistent (to my mind) with the position of many of this board's users, but is philosophically at odds with any board of this type.

The evangelical zeal with which trails are blazed and "discoveries" reported is intrinsically driven by attachment to the good and desire for the better. If I seek opinions like "mine", it certainly makes sense to turn toward a community of like-minded fellows, as it appears you do with LTH. But in order to motivate sharing, to create content, to issue elaborate and self-centered accounts of your meals and kitchen adventures, to create the body of work to which others turn--to do that, I think you must be an egotist, or you must believe you are working in pursuit of something "good."

I hope that a reluctance to acknowledge your own good taste, or at least to believe your own taste is good, hasn't kept you from posting on LTH. I very much enjoyed your posts when you were on Chowhound, and I think you bring an interesting perspective (along with good taste) to the table. I hope you can tolerate disagreements on the nature of taste—and the occasional appearance of snobbery—in order to share more frequently with this community.

Cheers,

Aaron

Deflator-Mouse,

Thanks for the thoughtful response; it's a pleasure to have a discussion where disagreement does not lead to or degenerate into nastiness or one-liner dismissals.

Deflator_Mouse wrote:Fraudulent approach to Italian food aside (and that's a fair point – if Olive Garden is going to advertise any sort of authentic, representative of the actual Italian dining experience, they should be called to task if they come up short), I suspect we have very different understandings of the term "good food." I in no way think that qualities of goodness inhere in food in any sort qualitative way. And I know people who honest to goodness prefer Olive Garden's food to say, Merlo's...

I'm glad we agree that the fraudulent element to the presentation of, zum Beispiel, Olive Garden is a legitimate point of protest. That particular business goes to considerable lengths to convince through their advertising that they offer genuine Italian food, that is, food made in a manner that is consistent with traditional practice in Italian. That claim is so blatently false that it is laughable and in 'selling' the message with the grub they do a real disservice to their customers -- it is, in effect, teaching things that are completely wrong.

On the next point we may or may not agree -- I'm not completely sure though I suspect you will agree with my position. When I speak of "good food," I have two things in mind, one of which has to do with the wholesomeness or, perhaps a more apt term, healthfulness of the food. I am absolutely certain that Olive Garden, in order to maximise profit, does not emphasise freshness of ingredients nor purity of ingredients, nor do they use the highest or higher quality ingredients when they can substitute lower quality ones. Such cost saving and profit raising practices are ultimately the raison d'être of the industrial approach to 'restaurateuring' that defines the concatenated-eatery. A concrete example: olive oil is an essential element of Italian cooking. Extra virgin olive oil is an extraordinarily healthy foodstuff to consume; lower grades of olive oil have signifiacantly lower health benefits (as well as taste qualities). Now, I cannot believe for a moment that Olive Garden uses nothing in its kitchens -- as, say, I do at home -- but high quality olive oil. I bet they use pomace oil for dressing (where the very best oil should be used) and whatever industrially produced fats that are cheap to use for other applications. That 'Italian' food is less healthful than properly made Italian food, employing the ingredients that are both traditional and better in all ways. Of course, some Americans -- I suspect actually a great many -- don't like strongly flavoured olive oil (witness all the 'light' products they sell these days), and you would say, I surmise, that's fine: de gustibus non est disputandum. But I would say that the traditional and the more flavourful/better flavoured is also the more wholesome, the more healthy. And in Italian cookery (indeed, probable in all styles of cookery), the same can be said of ingredient after ingredient.

A related thought (in my brain anyway). The wine critic Robert Parker has insisted that when he assigns points to wines he is actually "seeing" qualities inherent in the wine itself. That Bordeaux just is a 94 point wine, in the same way that that rock has a certain density and that this book is a certain number of pages long... They are by all measures a very accurate representation of what Parker thinks about the wine. But nothing more.

I agree with you there but would add that I find Mr. Parker's approach fundamentally misguided in another sense: it is a (futile) attempt to dress up the aesthetic as the scientific. If one is interested in the scientific analysis of wine (or wheat flours or olive oils, etc. etc.), there are ways to quantify all manner of important elements. But in the end, such analysis -- however interesting and important it is for various reasons -- is irrelevant to the basic aesthetic question: 'does it taste good?' There is a well developed vocabulary that one can learn to discuss the flavours and other qualities of wine. Numbers say nought, unless they're vintages.

I care about good food because I care about eating food that tastes good to me. I suspect you care about good food at least in part because you think certain dishes are not just more authentically, say, Italian, in a strictly descriptive way (which by the way is an area I have enjoyed reading about in your posts), but are normatively better. And I don't think it is possible for one dish to be normatively better than another. Which doesn't mean there isn't a lot to say about each dish of course.

Well, here I disagree with a couple of points. First, a minor and more personal point. Against the opinions or assumptions of some, my interests in 'authenticity' -- or better still, in traditional cooking -- and in food history do not take precedence in my own cooking to what tastes good. Anyone who reads my cooking posts with some knowledge of the dishes in question has likely noted that I hardly follow old or traditional recipes in a slavish way. When I cook, my point is to make food that a) tastes good to those who will consume it, and b) is wholesome (containing a minimum of adulterations) and healthful (containing a maximum of elements that promote health). Now, over many years of cooking and researching various cuisines, I've found that very often, most often even, more 'authentic' or more 'traditional versions of dishes are better than the more popular adapted versions that one encounters outside of the original region of origin.

But now, what is 'better'? We've already discussed wholesomeness and healthfulness. That's not what I mean here. Here I mean aesthetically better. In my opinion, cooking is an art and when we speak of art, we speak of matters of subjective taste but also of aesthetic judgements that can be and must be made by people who have a certain breadth and depth of knowledge about the art form in question. It is fine that some people prefer Mickey Spillane to Louis Ferdinand Céline, or that some prefer the music of Iron Butterfly to Cream or the food of Olive Garden to that of Merlo. At that one level, where there is nought but a question of personal preference, unfettered by broader knowledge or critical reflexion, yes, every opinion has its equal share of validity.

But there is another level where it is right and proper to say that according to principles that have evolved through the discussions of people who are genuinely interested in and knowledgeable about a given art form, one piece of writing is better than another or one writer is better than another, that one musician is better than another and, indeed, that one cook is better than another, one recipe better than another, etc. Where the differences are subtle, there is room for endless debate, which can help the overall development of the production and reception of work in that genre. And when the differences are large, it is right and proper to say, for example, that food from an Olive Garden's kitchen is relatively poorly made, is inferior in quality along many or all parameters when compared with food made in some other kitchen.

Food is, or can be, art and when one considers it at that level or in that manner, when one has spent time observing great cooks -- professional or totally unschooled (in a formal sense) home cooks, one can see and appreciate the difference of talent and palate that render some cooks qualitatively superior to others.

I have said this a number of times when being attacked in the course of a discussion about some given dish for being snobby or elitist, namely that I think everyone should eat what they like to eat. But I do believe firmly that it is possible and worthwhile to discuss things culinary in sophisticated terms and to debate issues of 'authenticity', of food history and of relative artistic merit of recipes or cooks or restaurants. And if that's possible, than it is also possible to say that restaurants such as Olive Garden -- setting aside issues of stupid and dishonest advertising, of offering minimally wholesome items, of competing and driving out of business locally owned restaurants, etc. -- serve up food that is aesthetically less good than other places.

And in the end, with no snobbism involved whatsoever, at least to my mind, people who have extensive knowledge of and experience eating Italian food must say that those who eat at Olive Garden and enjoy the food served there, don't know better or lack the faculties or interest required to tell the difference between good and bad versions of 'Italian' food. That does not mean that the fans of Olive Garden should be the objects of ridicule. From my standpoint, it's both rewarding and fun to expose people to 'real' Italian cooking who previously hadn't encountered it; I believe I've done that in a number of cases and in doing so have gotten those people to eat better food: that is a process of teaching. We all have our limitations of knowledge and to my mind it's crueler to say "everyone's taste is equally valid" and leave it at that. Therefore it is right and proper to criticise Olive Garden and its ilk and it is right and proper to say to those who eat there, "try these restaurants and these dishes." Many will perceive the difference.

Antonius

Mostly what I have to say is this: Yeah -- what Antonious said.

But there are a couple other points I want to make. I generally like Starbucks coffee (though I recently had a very bad cup). And I like that Starbucks apparently treats its workers reasonably well and treats its suppliers reasonably well (assuming their claims are true). I would note, however, that it is interesting that this claim of social responsblity is as much a part of the Starbucks product as the coffee. Starbucks does not treat its employees and suppliers so well purely out of altruism. They have decided that doing so is a way to maximize their profits. Good for them. But the Starbucks "experience," as they package it, strikes me as a bit jive-filled, inorganic and creepy. And when Starbucks customers buy into it as whole-heartedly as some (including some friends of mine) do, I think it's kind of weird and kind of funny. Starbucks, like Whole Foods, strives to make its customers feel virtuous and cool -- more virtuous and cool than the shlub who drinks 8 oclock bean or shops at Jewel. Buying that part of the Starbucks product is a little silly and, yes, worthy of a little good-natured mockery. Keep in mind the people mocked by on this board (frequented largely by a bunch of food-dorks) are not the poor, the disavantaged or the disabled -- they are the generally well off folks who pay $3 for a cup of coffee. They'll be OK.

And, again, what Antonious said.

Here is a slightly more virtuous way to buy coffee (and less expensive): http://www.chicagohomeless.org/coffee/coffee.htm

I don't have any problems with Starbucks. Whatever their flaws, they've raised the bar for coffee quality in America dramatically. I recall working in the Loop in 1992 and how totally psyched we all were when a Starbucks opened in OUR office building (70 West Madison). My office mates and I all made a special trip down on opening day, just to get at that nectar! We didn't see ourselves as cool; just lucky. Compared to the crappy coffee routinely served in the Loop at that time (n.b., I am not comparing Starbucks to any neighborhood coffeehouse of the day; only to the diner swill that predominated in the Loop at the time). Accessibility is the key with Starbucks; and while it may only be grade "B" or "B+" in the overall world of coffee excellence, it is consistent, and consistently available, at that level of quality. (That said, the cup of La Colombe Torrefaction I recently enjoyed at Dodo was clearly superior to any Starbucks I've ever had. But it's also a lot harder to get.) I'll finish with an anecdote. Five years ago, I attended a Quaker wedding in rural Pennsylvania. This was "rural" land only a couple of miles outside Philadelphia, so naturally there were plenty of high-end strip malls and, as I drove past one on my way in from the airport, I noticed a Starbucks. The next morning, wanting a decent cup of coffee (i.e., better than the in-room coffee brewer), I set out for Starbucks. Others in the party were standing about the lobby asking about coffee options (yes, they were!), and when I told them where I was going, I was met with scornful contempt. Funny ... 10 minutes later, I was the only one drinking decent coffee that morning. These folks -- I've never seen anything like before or since -- actually would rather have gone without than deign to drink Starbucks. Although they were all academic types, 30-something humanities lecturers, and bookful blockheads all. It was hard enough explaining myself as a lawyer in that group; the Starbucks cup must have proved my philistinism beyond all doubt.

JILS: You know I meant "shlub" in a good way, right?

edk wrote:JILS: You know I meant "shlub" in a good way, right?

Yep! As in, a non-bookful blockhead, right?

Whatever their flaws, they've raised the bar for coffee quality in America dramatically.

I agree 100% and have been grateful to Starbuck's ever since. Before Starbuck's began its imperial adventure, it was almost impossible to get a good cup of coffee outside the major metropolitan centers (and beyond NY, SF, Seattle, and a few others not even there). Moreover, those so-called "Mom-and-Pop" coffeehouses (those few that actually existed, anyway -- I never found any in Toleda, Topeka, Tulsa, etc.) were often not very good, frequently tended by an underpaid student studying for his/her finals who would just as soon give you a cup of sludge as a full-bodied espresso with a half-decent crema.

By the way, I've also been reviewing this thread, and for the life of me I can't figure out whether the "snobs" are those who populate Starbuck's or those who turn their noses up at it.

JimInLoganSquare wrote:(n.b., I am not comparing Starbucks to any neighborhood coffeehouse of the day; only to the diner swill that predominated in the Loop at the time).

Can't say how it compares, but I work nine floors immediately above Spiro's station at the original Billy Goat, and honestly, his 50c cup of diner coffee far beats whatever's being served for six or eight times that next door.

JimInLoganSquare wrote:Accessibility is the key with Starbucks; and while it may only be grade "B" or "B+" in the overall world of coffee excellence, it is consistent, and consistently available, at that level of quality.

Of course, the same arguments of consistency and availabilty are made in favor of McDonald's and the Olive Garden.

But, you know, de gustibus and all that. George Howell has been mentioned on this site before, and he was doing just fine introducing New Englanders to a consistent, high-quality coffee in the '70s and '80s without charring the beans. Do people who like coffee I consider over-roasted irk me? Nah, I know I'm right, but fine, they can have theirs too, even at six or eight times the price.

It is interesting reading this and noting that the discussion started in 2004.

Not to turn this into a business page discussion, but since then the stock of Starbucks has gone up by almost 50% (split adjusted, it was about $26 then and now is going for about 37-38 this week). They are continuing to expand with no end in sight. They also keep beating same store sales numbers.

As somebody with a limited financial interest in that side (less than 500 shares), I am somewhat boggled by it. The coffee is good, but a lot of places have good coffee. Personally, and I've heard this from a few others, I can't even drink it as something about it is difficult to digest (aside from the idea of $4.50 for a large mocha). I go in there once every three months or so just to check it out, realizing that the next day my stomach may respond in anger at my coffee choice.

The issue of the expansion is fascinating though. They recently had a major program of renovating stores and in the store on my block (is there anyone who doesn't have one on their block?) I can't see a major difference. The renovations to the stores do not appear to be the key to the success.

Are there enough law students and undergrads and salespeople to keep the expansion going?

On the other hand, there may be a relatively simple explanation: It may just be that Starbucks is very good at what it does. I've rarely had a poor experience with staff at Starbuck's. At Caribou (one of the Loop locations), the staff seems to think they are WAY too cool to do things like getting your order right. At Cosi, they have some good staff and some that are not as good. At Corner Bakery, they seem to have a problem making coffee HOT. It is interesting that at Starbucks the staff always seems well trained and professional. That, along with comfy chairs and internet access, may be the real reason that it continues to do well.

I think it's kind of weird and kind of funny. Starbucks, like Whole Foods, strives to make its customers feel virtuous and cool -- more virtuous and cool than the shlub who drinks 8 oclock bean or shops at Jewel.

Interesting that this has been your experience- mine has been quite the opposite. For the most part, I hear people who shop at Whole Foods and drink Starbucks derided as mindless hipsters, Trixies and Chads. The REALLY cool people drink at local coffee shops and buy their produce at Stanley's. Probably a reaction to the phenomenon you mentioned above, but interesting nonetheless. personally, as someone else mentioned, I prefer Starbucks for the simple fact that I don't need a side of hipper-than-thou attitude with my coffee. I'm thinking of one small coffee shop in Lincoln Park that has been so egregiously guilty of this, I completely refuse to buy their coffee, even though they're located about five hundred feet from my job.

That being said, I full agree with JimInLoganSquare- Eight O'Clock columbian is the best coffee there is (and you really can't beat the price!)

jbw wrote:By the way, I've also been reviewing this thread, and for the life of me I can't figure out whether the "snobs" are those who populate Starbuck's or those who turn their noses up at it.

You hit the nail right on the head. Why people scorn Starbucks for what they are just escapes me. Here's a company that took the coffeehouse platform to America and gets everyone from cab drivers to executives to come and enjoy decent coffee. I enjoy being able to go into a Starbucks and see such a diverse cross-section of society. And what do they do wrong, exactly? They hold classes to teach people how to make good coffee/espresso. They sell Ethos water, whose profits get donated. Their employees volunteer in the neighborhood and actually make a half-way decent living.

When I was a student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison I surely was one to scorn at Starbucks and other symbols of "corporate excess." But eventually, I grew up. If I don't like a company, I don't go there. Period.

sweetsalty wrote:I full agree with JimInLoganSquare- Eight O'Clock columbian is the best coffee there is (and you really can't beat the price!)

I always enjoy affirmation, sweetsalty, although for the record, all I really was saying was that 8 O'Clock Columbian is, in my opinion, the best whole bean coffee typically available in a regular grocery store. That makes it better than Starbucks sold in the same store regardless of the price. In fact, I believe there are much better coffees available, but they aren't sold at Jewel. I do agree that you can't beat the price on 8 O'Clock, if by that you mean the price-to-quality ratio; there are certainly less expensive beans available.

edk wrote:folks who pay $3 for a cup of coffee

Who pays $3 for a cup of coffee at Starbucks? It's more like $1.40 or something. Less if you bring your own cup like I usually do (it stays hotter that way). And their prices are comparable to local coffee shops near them, that don't make coffee that is as tasty. Their frou-frou drinks are more, but if we're talking coffee quality, let's talk coffee prices.

Now, I don't buy Starbucks on a regular basis either. I make coffee at home in the morning, put it in my insulated mug and take the bus. When I ride my bike, I make coffee at work (we all contribute $36 a year and a co-worker buys 8-O'Clock whole beans and 2% milk for us). My beans vary - right now I've got a regular and a decaf from Intelligentsia and I mix them about 1/2 and 1/2.

JimInLoganSquare wrote:

sweetsalty wrote:I full agree with JimInLoganSquare- Eight O'Clock columbian is the best coffee there is (and you really can't beat the price!)

I always enjoy affirmation, sweetsalty, although for the record, all I really was saying was that 8 O'Clock Columbian is, in my opinion, the best whole bean coffee typically available in a regular grocery store. That makes it better than Starbucks sold in the same store regardless of the price. In fact, I believe there are much better coffees available, but they aren't sold at Jewel. I do agree that you can't beat the price on 8 O'Clock, if by that you mean the price-to-quality ratio; there are certainly less expensive beans available.

I don't know how it compares on price, but I like "Chock Full O'Nuts" much better in the "whole bean coffee typically available in a regular grocery store" category.

I've also been reviewing this thread, and for the life of me I can't figure out whether the "snobs" are those who populate Starbuck's or those who turn their noses up at it.

Yes.

Starbucks is ready to bring its sprawling Roastery store concept, which the company calls "coffee as theater," to Chicago's Magnificent Mile.
The coffee giant is negotiating a potential deal to move into the four-story, approximately 35,000-square-foot building that Crate & Barrel leases at North Michigan Avenue and Erie Street, according to real estate sources.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... olumn.html

Rumor has it that one is going into downtown Naperville, as well.

Dave148 wrote:

Starbucks is ready to bring its sprawling Roastery store concept, which the company calls "coffee as theater," to Chicago's Magnificent Mile.
The coffee giant is negotiating a potential deal to move into the four-story, approximately 35,000-square-foot building that Crate & Barrel leases at North Michigan Avenue and Erie Street, according to real estate sources.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... olumn.html

It's official.

Starbucks announced this morning it plans to open a 43,000-square-foot Reserve Roastery on Michigan Avenue. The four-story location at the intersection of Michigan Avenue and Erie Street is slated to open in 2019 and will be Starbucks' third Roastery, the company said.
The shop will be "dedicated to roasting, brewing and packaging its rare, small-batch Starbucks Reserve coffees from around the world," Starbucks said in a statement.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/ ... gan-avenue