Starbucks is downsizing more than coffee shops.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

I like SB, it's consistent and I like the taste of the coffee. I don't step foot into a McD. I wouldn't drink their coffee or eat their food at any price.

Mom, you sound like me. I don't like McD's, for several reasons; about the only thing I do like of theirs is the egg mcmuffin. (But reading books like "Fast Food Nation" will turn anyone off as far as fast foods go.)

Last year or so, I've had some concerns with Starbucks, who seem to be losing their focus.

- My favorite bean was the "Yukon" version, which they discontinued months ago. They told me "Verona" is 80% Yukon beans, but who knows for sure. If Verona was 80% Yukon beans, they should've discontinued Verona, else it doesn't make sense.

- Starbucks stopped brewing name brand beans in-store. If I want a cup of Verona, I have to make it at home.

- Starbucks switched in-store brew to "Pike Place" roast, which is inferior tasting compared to Yukon, Verona, etc.

- Starbucks tells me they no longer brew decaf in-store after Noon. What's up with that? Most people switch to decaf in the afternoon to avoid staying up half the night. This is backwards.

- They came out with a line of micro-waved sandwiches to compete with McDonald's for the breakfast crowd. I used to hit McD's for an egg mcmuffin and then Starbucks for coffee. Starbucks breakfast sandwiches are crappy, one was enough. In return, McDonald's upgraded their coffee to compete with Starbucks, whose decision to take on McDonalds strong point will someday be a case study in B-School on how NOT to compete, unless you want your clock cleaned and your stock value humbled. I still hit McDonalds' for a mcmuffin once in a while, but I avoid Starbucks and brew Verona at home.

(Speaking of stupid, McD's breakfast egg sandwiches are excellent, but they won't sell them past 10:30AM or so, thus I go to Sonic for an egg sandwich at lunch. One of these days McD's will wake up and understand which one of us is the customer.)

If you wanted to RUIN Starbucks you couldn't do a better job than to cheapen your coffee, offer fewer coffees, sell crummy sandwiches, and not give the customer what he wants (decaf in the afternoons). Someone at Starbucks is really missing the boat.

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

Mom, you sound like me. I don't like McD's, for several reasons; about the only thing I do like of theirs is the egg mcmuffin. (But reading books like "Fast Food Nation" will turn anyone off as far as fast foods go.)

Last year or so, I've had some concerns with Starbucks, who seem to be losing their focus.

- My favorite bean was the "Yukon" version, which they discontinued months ago. They told me "Verona" is 80% Yukon beans, but who knows for sure. If Verona was 80% Yukon beans, they should've discontinued Verona, else it doesn't make sense.

- Starbucks stopped brewing name brand beans in-store. If I want a cup of Verona, I have to make it at home.

- Starbucks switched in-store brew to "Pike Place" roast, which is inferior tasting compared to Yukon, Verona, etc.

- Starbucks tells me they no longer brew decaf in-store after Noon. What's up with that? Most people switch to decaf in the afternoon to avoid staying up half the night. This is backwards.

- They came out with a line of micro-waved sandwiches to compete with McDonald's for the breakfast crowd. I used to hit McD's for an egg mcmuffin and then Starbucks for coffee. Starbucks breakfast sandwiches are crappy, one was enough. In return, McDonald's upgraded their coffee to compete with Starbucks, whose decision to take on McDonalds strong point will someday be a case study in B-School on how NOT to compete, unless you want your clock cleaned and your stock value humbled. I still hit McDonalds' for a mcmuffin once in a while, but I avoid Starbucks and brew Verona at home.

(Speaking of stupid, McD's breakfast egg sandwiches are excellent, but they won't sell them past 10:30AM or so, thus I go to Sonic for an egg sandwich at lunch. One of these days McD's will wake up and understand which one of us is the customer.)

If you wanted to RUIN Starbucks you couldn't do a better job than to cheapen your coffee, offer fewer coffees, sell crummy sandwiches, and not give the customer what he wants (decaf in the afternoons). Someone at Starbucks is really missing the boat.

You've got some pretty valid and thoughtful opinions. I would post them on the starbucks.com site. There is a place for opinions and suggestions.

[revelated]

Starbucks' issue is and was arrogance. That they thought to saturate every street corner was laughable. There is, right now, a Starbucks that is literally in the exact same shopping center as a Vons, that has a Starbucks inside. No logic for that whatsoever.

In my opinion, they should have just put Starbucks in every terminal and departure/arrival point in the major airports, because that is where the majority of traffic would be had from, not just local to the city, but from connecting flights. They somewhat have this now, but there are less Starbucks in the airports in my experience than there should be. That's guaranteed money - there's ALWAYS a line at those Starbucks counters.

Next they should have focused on highly centralized urban areas like downtowns, or centralized communities like La Jolla. Places where there is a high mixture of residential and commercial that they can capitalize on. But to have a Starbucks out in a suburban shopping center next to a Starbucks in a Vons, down the street from a Starbucks in another shopping center that is next to a Starbucks in an Albertsons? Overkill, and as stated, cannibalizing each other's business.

[Stac2007]

With more Starbucks closing that means more journalist, psychologist, teachers and artist out of work.

[Rhenzanite]

Originally Posted by revelated

Starbucks' issue is and was arrogance. That they thought to saturate every street corner was laughable. There is, right now, a Starbucks that is literally in the exact same shopping center as a Vons, that has a Starbucks inside. No logic for that whatsoever.

In my opinion, they should have just put Starbucks in every terminal and departure/arrival point in the major airports, because that is where the majority of traffic would be had from, not just local to the city, but from connecting flights. They somewhat have this now, but there are less Starbucks in the airports in my experience than there should be. That's guaranteed money - there's ALWAYS a line at those Starbucks counters.

Next they should have focused on highly centralized urban areas like downtowns, or centralized communities like La Jolla. Places where there is a high mixture of residential and commercial that they can capitalize on. But to have a Starbucks out in a suburban shopping center next to a Starbucks in a Vons, down the street from a Starbucks in another shopping center that is next to a Starbucks in an Albertsons? Overkill, and as stated, cannibalizing each other's business.

There's a place in my county that has a small 'courtyard shopping' center with a bunch of stores and a few small walkways. Trying to mimick Europe, I'm sure... anyway, there's a two story Barnes and Noble with a Starbucks inside, where you can sit and look down on Starbucks across the walkway, then look the other direction and see another starbucks. There are literally THREE Starbucks within a 3 minute walk of eachother.

Crazy.

[debtmonger]

I never could understand the popularity of $5Bucks in the first place. Who would want to buy this overpriced product? I mean, we are talking about coffee...