It is true that Starbucks has the potential to “steal” customers. (As if such a thing were even possible—Customers go where they want.) However, Starbucks is also solely responsible for the relatively recent surge of interest in “gourmet” coffee. I’m not a fan of their brew myself, but I’ve seen several reported cases where Starbucks moving into a town increased awareness of the product and actually resulted in new businesses opening up to get a piece of the action. The consumers here are not restricted to a fixed-sized pool, and one customer at Starbucks isn’t necessarily one lost customer somewhere else.

Additionally, Starbucks typically pays better and is a more conscious bean buyer than smaller chains or mom and pop stores. This doesn’t mean that people don’t get hurt, but even in this respect it isn’t a simple black and white issue.

Except in cosmopolitan areas with high concentrations of wealthy people and specialty shops and restaurants, indie coffeehouses tend to open in communities AFTER a Starbucks has been introduced. Starbucks eases coffee neophytes into spending a bit more for a cuppa joe.

Wendy is right from what I’ve seen. From what I’ve read and seen in my own neighborhood: Starbucks actually perks people’s interest in overpriced coffee. Coffee shops near Starbucks have opened and continue to do well from what I can see.

I think people like to villify brands they don’t like on a brand, gut-level – maybe not on a reason-based social level. What about Target? Is Target as evil as Walmart? You look at various things like their percentage of employees with health insurance, the amount of jobs they create, the amount of money they save shoppers of specifically low-income people (as well as anyone else) – etc etc – and you see that Walmart may be no worse than those other big retailers.

Is Target less evil because its target market is a more affluent set of folks – ones more like the people on this site I might assume? Interesting to find out… I do know for a fact that certain union groups have supported anti-Walmart campaigns around the country to help stir up anti-Walmart sentiment because they are non-union.

The term “cannibalization” is the term a company uses to describe sales from one of their own stores cuts into the sale of another one of their own stores. If you ever hear Starbucks or any business using this term, they are talking about their own effect on their own business.

Yes, you may have heard this term in relationship to Starbucks it is one of the business measures multi-unit companies use to track overall sales.

Starbucks does not enter a market and undercut the pricing of the competition. They charge a premium for their products. Putting the little guy out of business would be opening a ton of stores and selling products cheaper than what are sold at mom n’ pop locations… and ultimately the mom n’ pop going under.

Starbucks took something we all got cheaply – coffee – and made it more expensive. They help other pretentious coffee places sell higher priced goods.

On another note, there are many new chocolatiers in the market doing the whole high-end chocolate thing and for the most part, they don’t taste any better than regular old Lindt or other European chocolates.

At select Starbucks stores in Seattle, you can buy a cup of joe for a buck. Ssssshhhh. It’s a new initive by ex-CEO-just-recently-unretired-because-of-falling-stock-prices Howard Schultz. Starbucks is hurting, and something needs to be done. But who goes to Starbucks because of it’s “cheap” prices?? A year ago, Schultz wrote a bitter memo to his executives about what he calls “the watering down of the Starbucks experience.” He complained that the soul of Starbucks was gone, and urged the higher ups to bring back customer service. So he’s back in action, determined to change the coffee giant’s luck. There’s no question Starbucks is in trouble. In the past year and a half, stock prices have fallen nearly 50%, from a high of $39.63 in May 2006, to closing at $19.66 today. Schultz blames the company’s out of control growth. Also ailing are skyrocketing milk prices, the troubling economy, and pressure from McDonald’s. But why dollar coffee? Isn’t that the turf of McDonald’s? But the answer is…not really. Mickey D’s recently announced plans to open “McCafe’s.” In other words, coffee bars featuring cappuccinos, lattes, and mochas whipped up by baristas, a la Starbucks. This, after Starbucks added drive-thru windows and hot breakfast sandwiches. It seems the two mega chains are going after each other… by coping each other. McDonald’s is upgrading, while Starbucks seems to be.. well, downgrading. The dollar cupajoe seems to be an effort to get crowds in the door, but in the move Starbucks is moving away from it’s brand. Starbucks is the king of $6 cups of coffee. They survived the economic downturn of 2001, when analysts feared the worst for a company who prides itself on hoity-hoity coffee. Starbucks customers LIKE that they shelled out bug bucks for their latte. The well known siren laden white cup is almost a status symbol, recognized in all corners of the world. Starbucks needs to go back to the “third place.” Howard, get rid of the drive-thrus, the expensive merchandise, and the cookie cutter stores. You don’t need to sell your coffee for a dollar. www.emily-carlson.com www.emilycarlson.org www.emilycarlson.info www.emilycarlsonchristmas.blogspot.com/ www.eacarlson3.bravejournal.com/