starbucks ruules

[Roy Gordon]

Peet's father was a Dutchman in the coffee business (I believe) who spent
many years in Indonesia.  So, Peet grew up in it; was a coffee brat,
so to speak.

The founders of Starbucks came from Peets, and Peets wholesaled coffee
to Starbucks in Starbucks' early days.

Peet's was sold (by Peet) a number of years ago.  Jim Reynolds is one
of the owners and master buyer/roaster.

Several years ago the Wall Street Journal had an article on franchising.
Peet's, which has several Bay Area stores, was denominated a company ripe
for national franchising that had consistently turned it down.  One of the
arguments presented by the franchisers was: "the product [coffee] will be
more consistent".  To which Reynolds replied: "We want to maintain quality,
not just consistency."

The coffee wars, primarily Peets vs. Starbucks, are fought regularly in
the ba.food newsgroup.  Peets seems to have more advocates.  The major
complaint about Peets is that its coffees are overroasted.  What can
I say, since I've been drinking Peets French roach (their darkest coffee)
for years and years, and occassionally send some to my (coffee) impoverished 
friends who have traitorously left me and my family in fleeing the Bay Area.

The main PC knock against Starbucks is that they wait for local mom and
pop operations to establish a coffee presence in the area, building up
a market.  Then Starbucks moves in next door or across the street,
taking advantage of the already established market, and forces the
mom and pop store out of business.

Of course, this is a time honored business strategy.  The computer
company I worked for more than a decade ago had this as an explicit
principle of business.  "We aren't on the leading edge with new
products," the VP of engineering once said.  "We wait for a small company
to establish the market and, once it matures a bit, then we move in." 

Starbucks has consistently denied this as their approach.  However,
examples sited in the coffee wars threads do not exactly lend an
overwhelming degree of credence to their denials.

Recently, Starbucks took out a permit for a store in a nearby neighborhood
in Oakland.  It was a small shopping district in a moderately upscale
area.  There was a mom and pop coffee shop that was quite insinuating
in its homey and friendly way.  I would occassionally frequent it after
dropping my kids off nearby for their roller hockey games.

There was a rather vocal outcry.  The coffee shop owners plaintively
stated they had all their money tied up in their shop and would likely be
wiped out.  Even more vocal were a number of residents who feared
their quality of life would be seriously compromised by more traffic in
general and, more specifically, by people parking on some of the side
streets.

Most of the merchants were against Starbucks, but not all, some arguing
that the influx of more people would be good for their business.

Unexpectedly (at least to me), just before the matter was to go before
some local board (as I remember), Starbucks withdrew their application
saying they were disappointed but did not wish their entry to cause
problems in the neighborhood.  (I'm trying to capture the tone of their
statement, whether one interprets it more cynically or not.)

						-- roy