homepage | OliosBlog | articles & essays | music | books | fiction | pretty sure | comfusion archive
| [essay]
Starbucks: A Beauty that is Skin Deep by
Christopher Gerber Yesterday, while walking on Market Street in San Francisco, I came across a Starbucks between Stockton and Grant. Sure, this is nothing unusual, because we do find a Starbucks on almost every other corner these days. I entered the shop and was engulfed by the familiarity of my environment; from the cold damp weather and the traffic noise outside, I passed into a small, warm, and cozy place with the delicious smell of coffee awakening all my senses, and at the same time waking me from a drowsy state of mind. The song playing was “The Garden Rose,” by Lavender Diamond, from her last album, Imagine our Love; it later switched to “Elf Manana,” played by the Gorillaz, which was a little more rhythmic, creating a wonderful ambiance of comfort. The interior was painted yellow, orange and green, Starbucks’ reference colors. While in line, I pondered the choices of drinks and pastries. Should I get the caramel blended Frappucino or the double chocolate chip crème Grande? I wasn’t that thirsty, and wasn’t really sure I wanted to order something. Of course, all this hesitation was instantaneous, becoming just another fleeting thought to intrude upon the aromatic surroundings. When my turn arrived, a waitress dressed in black and green asked me, with the biggest smile she had, how she could help; there was no way of refusing her welcoming question and not buying a goody for fear of frustrating her, so I, influenced by its image on the menu display, chose the Pumpkin Spice Latte. I ordered the Venti (the biggest one) being only 85 cents more than the tall (which is the smallest one). I took my coffee and sat myself on a chair in front of the window, and got caught up in the animation of people and vehicles, and enjoyed the view and the coffee in this peaceful place and moment. However, as this moment could be seen by many as heaven, I was pondering why Starbuck’s attracted so many people. That was my raison d’etre, and indeed, much was happening that did not quite meet the eye; many things were hidden behind this scene. Most of this business had been created for the sole purpose of attracting, influencing and continually pushing the customer to spend as much money as possible. So the next question to ask: Is Starbucks a corporation as great as it wants us to see it, or is it using the image it is projecting, to attract us, as customers, to come to its stores over others? In 1971, three partners, two teachers and a writer, decided to open a small coffee shop on the corner of Pike Place Market. They named it Starbuck’s “after the first mate in the novel Moby Dick” ("Starbucks"). In 1982, Howard Schultz joined the company and five years later bought it, becoming its new chairman. He did not know at the time that this decision would change his life and Starbucks’. He did not know that, fourteen years later, the little corporation he had in Seattle would expand to become the World’s largest coffee corporation.Starbuck’s is a corporation worth more than five and a half billion dollars today (in 2005), making a net profit of five hundred and sixty-four million dollars yearly. Proud of its image and ethics, it is in part because of these factors that Starbucks has been doing so well. It is considered the 29th best place for employees to work out of a hundred in the US (“100 Best Companies to Work For”); this rank is normal, when we see what Starbucks does for its employees. Its “partners,” as they are called, are well paid with an average of “44,790 dollars annually” - Starbucks is the #2 best company to work for in the large company category - receive health care even for the part-time workers and have flexible schedules. Howard Schultz, Starbucks’ CEO, tries to give his employees a workplace as comfortable as possible; he also randomly calls twelve of his stores every day to talk with his “partners” to see how everything is going. His “partners” also have the opportunity to enjoy and receive a “share in the company’s growth via ‘Bean Stock’ (stock options) of up to 14 percent of their gross pay, and a stock-investment plan allows them to buy shares of Starbucks common stock at a discount (85 percent of fair market value) through payroll deductions.” Starbucks therefore enjoys an 82% employee satisfaction rate ("Starbucks is Pleasing Employees and Pouring Profits"). Howard Schultz understands that employees are the foundation of the corporation and that without their satisfaction, Starbucks would not function. While Starbucks cares about and helps its partners, it overlooks many other parts of the company. Doing its best to satisfy the customer, Starbucks introduced fair trade in 2000, which “signifies that farmers in the developing world received a fair price for their crops” ("Fair Trade Labeling”); in 2006, Starbucks had purchased “some 18 million pounds” ("Fair Trade Labeling”) of coffee, which was certified TransFair (a fair trade label). While Starbucks sells fair trade coffee, it goes even further; it also supports many environmental policies. Wanting to become an environmental corporation, it has reduced the “size of paper napkins and the thickness of plastic store garbage bags to eliminate more than 1.8 million pounds of solid waste in 2004 by ten percent” ("Starbuck’s Protects Environment"). Moreover, it has “Developed ‘Grounds for Your Garden,’ an initiative to reuse coffee grounds, the largest portion of its waste. It's a year-round program that offers complimentary bags of spent coffee grounds to customers, parks, schools and nurseries for composting” ("Starbuck’s Protects Environment"). All of these policies are ethical decisions made by Starbuck’s to live life in a better world, and to differentiate it from other corporations. By being proactive and doing its best to support the environment, Starbucks is improving its image and attracting even more customers (many of them being “conscious consumers”) with the belief that if Starbucks wastes less, they also will be wasting less, it has a psychological impact. Furthermore, they have tried helping Ethiopia by creating different projects like “the Bensa Ware Water Project”; in 2002, Starbucks donated money to fund a water based infrastructure project in Bensa Ware Kebele from the sale of every cup of coffee purchased. Another project was the “Daye High School Education Project,” which also had the purpose of helping Ethiopia; for every bag of coffee sold to Starbucks, a small percentage would be donated to the school ("Bensa Ware Water Project Ethiopia 2002"). As it has tried to help Ethiopia restore its economy, Starbuck’s has moreover influenced and helped other countries’ economies increase. For example, it was applauded by Colombia in 2006 for supporting the “local economy and social projects” (“Starbucks Receives Colombian Order of the Grand Cross Medal for its Support of Coffee Farmers and Country's Economy”), and it has been presented the “Colombian Order of the Grand Cross Medal at Starbucks' headquarters in Seattle” for boosting “the economy of Narino by buying coffee at a premium price…” Thus, Starbucks has shown to the world that it is ethical in its trade economic policy, and that it is not, like many other companies, exploiting the laborers in under-developed countries as is Nike, Polo and others. It consequently has set an example to follow for all companies that want to be seen as ethical. Starbucks enjoys a great positive image: being careful about its workers and the environment; trying to help other economies, searching for the best products to sell to its clients, and doing its best for customer satisfaction, Starbucks has the perfect image of a great corporation and does the best it can to keep it. Nevertheless, does this truly mean that Starbucks is really a “good” corporation? Are the motivations behind the image pure? Starbucks’ success is generated through marketing techniques incorporating economical and ethical environmental involvement and brand ubiquity. Brand has an enormous influence on today’s market; it can be on cars such as Toyota or Nissan, or as much as it can be on medicines like Tylenol or Doliprane. Because most of these products have few differences, corporations have then competed in sales by branding their product and influencing the customer to buy theirs for one specific reason over another reason, even if they are more expensive. Starbucks has been particularly successful in the brand appeal and association department. By using different ways of influence, Starbucks has tried not only making its customers prefer buying in their stores but also tried to make them loyal and dependent of them. They have made Starbucks more than a simple coffee shop to the customer. The logo, representing a mermaid smiling inside a green circle with 2 stars lures the customer in; she is smiling and gives an impression of possible relaxation. However, we should not forget as in “the Odyssey,” the mermaids would attract people and ships with their beauty and voice to drown them into the depths of the ocean. The colors used in the shops also have a purpose: all Starbucks Stores are composed of three colors: a dark green, a light yellow and a dark orange. Those colors are the same in every shop to give the client an impression of “déjà vu.” You are never a stranger to the locale in any one of their shops. These colors also give an impression of appeasement and comfort when you are in the shop. Sometimes, you will want to go to a Starbucks not by thirst or need, but only for the sole reason that it is attractive to you and a place where you can relax. The most influential color is the dark green, used everywhere: on the logo, in the shop, on the board and on the cups, this dark algal color has made people identify it with Starbucks. Starbucks has a powerful influence over people. Because Starbucks makes people proud, loyal and satisfied to buy coffee there, people are choosing Starbucks over other coffee shops, hence driving out competition and diminishing or limiting the coffee culture. Starbucks doesn’t sell anything more than coffee and a few pastries like other coffee shops, and although it does sell good quality coffee, other coffee shops do too. What sets them apart is brand recognition. Yet, their coffee “drinks” are high in sugar and calories. One of the worst examples is the “Venti White Chocolate Mocha [which] has 600 calories” (“Diet and Health”). In comparison, McDonald’s, the fast food restaurant accused of fostering obesity, sells its Super Size Coke that contains 410 calories. Therefore it isn’t for health nor price that customers go to Starbucks. So what brings customers to Starbucks over other shops? It is the image that we, as customers perceive, that has made Starbucks emerge at the top. Starbucks’ influence has created a mental impact on people making them believe they will prefer shopping for “Starbucks coffee” more than in other coffee shops and even other venues having nothing to do with coffee. Starbucks’ brand has created a mystique and a certain mindset about its outlets. “As of July 1 [2007], there were 14,396 Starbucks locations worldwide” (“A Starbucks expansion is brewing in Michigan”). In June 2004, Starbucks had about 5,600 locations in the U.S., compared to Dunkin' Donuts' 4,200” It has continued growing exponentially with no let-up in sight. Howard Schultz had planned to expand to 30,000 shops worldwide; he has now shifted this number to 40,000 ("Starbucks Wants 40,000 Stores Worldwide, Up From 30,000 Goal"). Starbucks coffee shops are today seen on every street corner and continuing to expand. Yet, it isn’t enough for the corporation’s leader; he believes that if a possible customer is walking on one side of the street and a shop is on the other side, it could stop him from maybe buying the product. It is true; this technique called “place utility” gives the customer the product where he wants it to be and as close as possible to him. However, by going that far is to reshape the world to a Starbucks’ image. McDonald’s has already reshaped part of our culture by melding its fast foods in our life and cities by having 31,000 restaurants worldwide today. Starbucks is following this path, but wants even more; it wants to create a “third place”, “different from home and work (the first and second places respectively), somewhere people can relax in good company on a regular basis ("Starbucks as 3rd Place?"); a sort of home away from home, a type of refuge. By being this famous, Starbucks has become the “Darth Vader” of coffee shops. Anywhere it settles, all other coffee shops go out of business. No company can rise to that level of competition and this stifles small coffee owners who can no longer make a living. But isn’t this the principal of capitalism? However, by putting them all out of jobs, Starbucks is destroying all competition and before our very eyes a new monopolistic corporation is getting created. Worst of all, it is not only destroying coffee shops, but to a large extent the coffee culture. As before, every time people would enter a café, it would have all sorts of different ambiances, coffees and other special innovations… Now because there is only one kind of shop left, we will not be able to experience it anymore. The only coffee available and left will be a “Latte”, yet this is only taking into account Starbucks in America. Starbucks went global in 1996 and has consequently started reshaping the coffee culture in other countries by bringing thousands of its outlets to 41 other countries. For example, it has brought some of these shops to Europe, where a coffee culture already exists; many Europeans are often portrayed enjoying a coffee after lunch or even dinner, this coffee always take time to make, and the European citizens always take the time to sit down and enjoy the coffee they drink; they do not use it for the only motive of waking up while running to work as we portray it for the US. So even though Starbucks may be a good type of shop in America, because its coffee is done and ready to go in few minutes, the “fast food” of coffees should not be exported to other countries as those of Europe, where it will only spoil the beauty of the coffee culture already established. Despite all this, Starbucks is taking root in these countries and hoping to remodel their culture and to standardize the coffee to its style. Starbucks tries to be an ethical corporation and does better than many other companies, but it is facing many issues, because for the most part, the opposite is happening. In Ethiopia for example, where Starbucks tried showing how ethical it was with its different projects; it has been paying the coffee farmers and producers an “average price of $1.45” ("Starbucks Vs Ethiopia") per pound of coffee, the farmers receive less than one dollar per pound of coffee when the net salary is done. And even though this is a fair trade price (fair trade guarantees a minimum of $1.26 per pound of coffee to the farmer) ("Fair Trade Labeling”), this same pound of coffee is later sold in Starbucks shops in America at between $14 to $26. Ethiopia understands that it is being stolen, “The price differential, says Getachew Mengistie, head of Ethiopia's Intellectual Property Office, is evidence that his country has been unable to capitalize on what he calls its intellectual property.” ("Starbucks Vs Ethiopia”) So in fact, Starbucks creating all these projects in Ethiopia to help that population recover from their bad economy is being very hypocritical knowing that they are stealing from them and abusing their labor; it is just trying to cover up its image. Ethiopia has sent a report and tried suing the corporation for abusing its foreign labor; this case is still pending today. Anyway, where does all the money go? Between the time when the farmers received a $1.45 and the time it was sold at $26, something must have happened to the money. Maybe it is because this is fair trade coffee; maybe this is the extra money we give to the grower, which makes the pound so expensive. You will be surprise and maybe shocked to learn that as little as 10 percent of the extra price [we, as customers] pay for a fair trade cup of coffee goes to the grower” ("Fair Trade Labeling”) and that the 90 other percents of the profit are shared between “wholesalers, processors, branders and retailers” ("Fair Trade Labeling”). What a good deal to buy fair trade coffee then, you will tell me, but do not fear; even though Starbucks says it sells fair trade coffee, only 6% of the purchased coffee was certified TransFair in 2006 ("Fair Trade Labeling”). While Starbucks is then a pro-environment, ethical, employee-caring globally helpful, and good quality coffee corporation, which is much more ethical than many other companies, it is still as many corporations are, based on profit margins. Yet it goes even a little further by using its image to entice the customer; it also uses it for the purpose of covering all the unethical decisions it makes, such as ruining the coffee culture, destroying the competition, monopolizing, and covering economic decisions made in different countries (Ethiopians workers wage). Even though Starbucks enjoys a good image of, its only purpose was to use this image to its competitive advantage. With the use of it and other influences such as the colors or the logo, Starbucks has directed people to its coffee shops more successfully than other companies have been able to, thus crushing competition. It has begun installing a monopoly as a trade corporation over the world with five million customers a week in its stores, climbing to McDonald’s and Coca Cola’s rank in world dominance and influence. As they have done, Starbucks has started to reshape the world’s culture by installing shops everywhere. Yet even worse, on the contrary of McDonalds or Coca Cola that were new companies and that hadn’t over-shadowed other competitors, Starbucks is also destroying a culture. The “culture of coffee,” with all its different special coffee shops or with all their different styles around the world (France, America…) is being taken over by this corporation which is going to bring a standardized sale of the same coffees everywhere making a whole culture disappear; all this for the purpose of profit. References: "Starbucks is Pleasing Employees and Pouring Profits." Workforce Management. Oct. 2003. "Starbucks." Wikipedia. 23 Oct. 2007. "Starbucks Protects Environment." U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. 4 Oct. 2007. "Starbucks as 3rd Place?" It's All Good. 10 Jun. 2004. “Starbucks Receives Colombian Order of the Grand Cross Medal for Its Support of Coffee Farmers and Country's Economy." CSRwire. 29 Oct. 2007. "100 Companies Best to Work For." CNNmoney.Com. 04 Nov. 2007. "Starbucks Vs Ethiopia." CNNmoney.Com. 2006. "Starbucks Corporation." Student Ressources. "Starbucks Wants 40,000 Stores Worldwide, Up From 30,000 Goal." International Herald Tribune Business. 6 Oct. 2006. "Bensa Ware Water Project Ethiopia 2002." Starbucks Coffee Company. "Starbucks is the #2 Best Company to Work for (in the Large Company Category)." Starbucks Gossip. 16 Jan.2005. "Indie Coffee Shop Owner Says Starbucks Tried to Steal Her Customers." Starbucks Gossip. 20 Feb. 2006. Masci, David “Diet and Health.” Abstract. 23 Feb. 2001. Glazer, Sarah. "Fair Trade Labeling”. Abstract. 18 May 2007. "Global Exchange’s Statement on Starbucks’ New "CAFÉ Practices”." Global Exchange. Apr. 2004. Snavely, Brent. "A Starbucks Expansion is Brewing in Michigan." Crain's Detroit Business. 29 Oct. 2007. |