A Little Rant About Starbucks

I like Starbucks. But man oh man, the stuff in this video rings very true.

PRODUCT REVIEW: Starbucks Anniversary Roast 2011

Starbucks coffees are really hit or miss, what with their massive supply line, and I briefly pondered whether the drastic increases in coffee prices would affect their quality. First, I can safely say that Starbucks quality is generally in-tact. I was surprised by the number of broken beans in the bag, but that could be a result of rough handling by anyone in the supply chain. Prices are significantly higher, though. The half-pound bag was nine dollars, and that makes the proposition of buying coffee from a local roaster all the more attractive. But this is neither here nor there. Neither over hill, nor over dale.

The 2011 Anniversary Blend is the annual release of a blend onto which they slap a brand. I haven't tried earlier versions, but I suspect that the blends are whatever is available in large amounts, and since the anniversary comes out at the same time every year, the blends are undoubtedly similar.

I like the new blend. I'm a bit disappointed by the level of the roast, as I usually am with Starbucks. Instead of relying on my grind level, I'm going to start referencing how much the beans weigh per level tablespoon of unground beans. Most roasts are in the 6-8g range, while Anniversary 2011 is 4.5-5g. That is quite dark indeed.

Luckily, unlike the incredibly disappointing Tribute Blend, Anniversary retains some flavor. It's dark, roasty, very mellow, and goes wonderfully in an espresso double. It's still darker than I would have liked, and the age of the beans is very apparent when extracting a shot: the crema is thin, thin, thin. While these would have been deal-breakers in most circumstances, Anniversary is perfectly balanced and such a good "standard" coffee, that I can't help but give it a thumbs up.

I finally have a siphon pot and pour-over setup, so I can give you more rounded reports of the flavor. Unfortunately for these beans, both pour over and siphon amplify their shortcomings. Espresso does very, very well with rich, simple blends. Truly, in most espresso cases, the simpler the blend, the better. The slow extraction of pour over make the most of vibrant, complex, lightly-roasted coffees. The age of the beans is again apparent with a near-nonexistent bloom. Still, as with the espresso, it's very good "standard"-tasting coffee. Complex? No, but it's leagues better than Folgers.

So while I was disappointed by the roast level, and thus the pour-over extraction, the rich espresso and good basic flavor make up for it. My only serious reservation is the price, and it's the reason why I'm hesitant to recommend it. Nine dollars for half-a-pound is a LOT of money, especially when you can buy excellent coffee fresh from local roasters like Updike's Newtowne or Coffee Exchange for less money. Worse still, prices might get higher, rendering Starbucks a non-option (Starbucks Reserve coffees, at $30 per pound, are already the domain of lunatics).

Price aside, though, it's a good coffee. I just hope that bean prices don't get any higher, or only a maniac would buy Starbucks.

Starbucks Anniversary Blend 2011: RECOMMENDED

PRODUCT REVIEW: Starbucks Three Regions Blend

Starbucks is back. Last month they released their Tribute Blend, which was a disaster. It was a blasted mess of a bean, with nearly all of the terroir charred from the bean by an aggressive roast. I was doubly disappointed because I had just had Casi Cielo for the very first time, which was a fantastic blend. Starbucks has completely made up for it, though, with Three Regions Blend.

Open the bag and you're hit with a very strong bouquet of fudge and brownies. It's funny, since very little of this initial smell gets to the palate. Also nice, Starbucks' description of the coffee is rather accurate. It's a very toasty coffee, with a lot of bread, mellow roast, and just a small amount of spice. It does better the lighter your serving. A heavy espresso double was blowing out the flavors and delivering too much roast. A light double was good, and an espresso single was very good. Moreover, this isn't a very cremariffic coffee, so there's no real reason to use a double.

I'd imagine that drip coffee will simply blast the beans, since I found that they tasted best with a cooler brew. In this quest, pour-over, or my chosen brewing method, Aeropress are ideal. My favorite method was far and away the espresso single, which drew out all of the best flavors. There was a lot more terroir than in many other Starbucks blends and beans, which was probably helped by a comparably light roast. As I always mention, Starbucks usually needs a low grind on my Rancilio Rocky, sometimes as low as 3, with most good espresso blends needing a 9 or 10.

As far as Starbucks beans go, Three Regions blend is visibly lighter. There's a smaller amount of oil on the surface, and the color has more brown to it. Casi Cielo, still Starbucks' only legitimately impressive blend, required a 9. Three Regions needs around an 8. Still, the roast is more than light enough to give the beans character.

Three Regions Blend is a definite buy. It tastes fresh, and does very well in an Aeropress and a single. Just avoid making any doubles with it.

Starbucks Three Regions Blend: RECOMMENDED

McDonald's Goes Upmarket. Analysts Get It Wrong.

McDonald's is at it again, with a multi-billion dollar renovation of locations, with new furniture, colors, and amenities. Analysts see this as McDonald's trying to move into Starbucks' territory, or differentiate themselves from the other fast food stand-by's. Both of these perspectives are only partly true. The underlying motivation is much grander and has been on McDonald's mind for two decades.

In my review of Five Guys Burger and Fries, I discussed something that I've been mulling for time. Namely, the stratification of dietary classes in America. As time goes on, and scale drives the price and quality of certain foods ever lower, we'll have the lower class eating total garbage that costs almost nothing, and anyone who can afford it will be eating better and better.



As with the Arch Deluxe so many years ago, this is McDonald's trying to prevent that future from becoming reality. Because in this economic mechanism, anyone who competes on price will be actively pushed downmarket, resulting in ever-thinner profits, and lower-SES customers. When fast food was simply fast food, something everyone ate now and then, this future wasn't a threat. But now, with fast food being further segmented into high and low-quality, it's a game of musical chairs to see who can get away from the low-end more quickly.

Onward: How Starbucks Didn't Change Much At All

I'm sure by now that many of you are aware that Howard (I keep wanting to call him Charles) Schultz has written a book. It's hard to miss; it's prominently displayed in every Starbucks on the planet. It's supposedly about how Starbucks realized that it had lost its way, found its "soul" once more and has since enjoyed success. Umm, ok. I'll play along.

I managed to get my hands on a copy of the internal Cliff's Notes passed out to employees, which included a a synopsis of the book and some, hehe, talking points. Now, before I go any further, I want to stress that I enjoy going to Starbucks, and among fast food, the service is, without doubt, the best.


The first, third, and fourth talking points are all pretty standard fare. It's the second point that I find almost laugh-out-loud ridiculous? Not your standard business book? You don't read many business books, do you? That's, like, the formula for business books. Not only that, it's the formula for any interview on any news program of anyone who has ever been associated with business at some point in their life. Either that or it's an incredibly truncated essay on To Kill a Mockingbird.

And on that first point, I find Starbucks' rediscovering of their soul to be almost entirely semantic. All of their actions are couched in quasi-spiritual terms, but strip those away, and everything that Starbucks did is standard operating procedure for a food service company trying to reinvigorate sales. They beefed up their marketing and drastically revamped their food selection. Their "re-training" of baristi did nothing. Truly, multiple coffee comparisons came out after the training sessions declaring Starbucks to be far from #1. Moreover, I had lattes from two separate locations the day after training. One was from an anchored location inside of a supermarket, which did not receive training, and another full location that did receive training. This was as direct a comparison as could be hoped for. The post-training latte was terrible. The milk foam was coarse and overly hot and the espresso tasted burnt. I'm assuming that the machine was simply not calibrated, but you'd think they would have made a point to do this right after the much-ballyhooed event.

The ordeal seems to me like they conjured up good-sounding words to describe what they were doing, then handed the entire thing over to people who couldn't have given less of a shit about soul or mission, and simply did what they knew would work, because their "food service 101" text book from business school had an entire section on it.

Oh, and if you're thinking that My Starbucks Idea is somehow an example of Starbucks bucking standard business practices, you're quite mistaken. I submitted ideas to that website and read hundreds more. Any ideas that could have been truly revolutionary, inventive, or otherwise disruptive never made it anywhere, regardless of the number of votes that it received. It's not just me saying this, Brand Autopsy, which is run by a guy who used to work for Starbucks, analyzed the "success" early last year. It's not pretty. Starbucks didn't even offer free WiFi when that article was written, even though customers demanded it, and it had already been offered at local cafes since sometime in the High Middle Ages. Oh yeah. Really rocking the boat there, Starbucks.

Again, Starbucks should ditch its high-falutin' language, it does no one any good, and recognize what they are. They are fast food for people who don't want to be seen with a bag from McDonald's or Dunkin' Donuts. That's obviously a big market. And I would know. I'm frequently seen with a Starbucks bag.

Peet's Coffee WTF?!

I just went to Peet's Coffee for the very first time. I read a lot about coffee, go to a lot of cafes, and drink more than his healthy. I can say pretty definitively that Starbucks is the target of buttloads of animosity and is referenced derisively as Charbucks more often than not, while the other major chain, Peet's, is always spoken of in not-so-quiet reverence. The phrasing of this criticism is usually how only idiots go to Starbucks, and those who really know coffee will always go to Peet's instead.

Well all I can say to that is WTFUCK?! Their food selection was quite good. Better than Starbucks' currently is, even though the selection at the 'Bucks is a bit wider. If Peet's food has always been this good, then yes, their food was much better than Starbucks before they changed all of their recipes and food selections.

But it's the coffee that matters at a coffee shop, and it's here that had me shocked. For one, I was blown away, literally blown away! It was Boston. I was shot while waiting in line. But after getting out of the hospital a couple of months later, I returned and picked up the latte that I had ordered. It was a bit old, so I ordered a new one.

First off, Starbucks is lampooned by those in the know for using what are known as super-auto machines. These are the machines that grind, tamp, espress, and almost automatically steam milk. The problem with these machines is that while they can be operated by a trained chimp, the espresso is never as good as from a traditional grinder/machine setup, and the milk foam is never anywhere close. So color me surprised when I walked up to the counter and saw two super-auto machines pumping away behind the counter.

It was a Schaerer, a brand of which I know, but have never seen one in actual use. At least it's not the Frankes that Panera Breads use. Panera has some truly awful espresso. The espresso itself tasted alright. The machine was obviously well-calibrated and clean. The problem, though, is that a latte from Starbucks, when (...when) their machines are well-calibrated, they taste just as good. Worse still, just like Starbucks rather frequently, the milk foam was atrocious. Look at it!


That's terrible foam! I don't get commercial super-auto machines. I owned a Jura Capresso Z5 for years, and while it took a little tweaking, I was able to squeeze out some really good milk foam and espresso. These are commercial machines that frequently cost eight times as much and the product is either only comparable or inferior. Just compare that Peet's latte to this one, made with the $3,000 Jura Capresso Z5, and the next one, which was made with a $2,000 semi-auto espresso machine.




Peet's coffee is so far behind those two examples as to be akin to putting Jessie Owens in the Special Olympics. If Peet's Coffee is like this at every location, then I can safely say that those who mock Starbucks and espouse Peet's are the ones who actually know nothing about coffee. You can work yourself into a self-important, anti-corporate rage all you want; Starbucks isn't too bad.

Starbucks' Mini Cupcake

I had one of Starbucks' mini cupcakes. It was pretty good. Still too heavy on the icing, but I'm getting used to that from mass-market cupcakes. It's better than anything I've ever had from a supermarket, so that's something, but at $1.50 for one, $2.50 for two, it's a little pricy. The whoopie pie isn't terribly good, the brownie was decent, and the cake "popsicles" are just stupid ideas, even if they taste alright.

Starbucks CEO Doesn't Drink Frappuccinos. Tries To Make This Seem Less Bad.

In a recent interview with questions submitted by users, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz was asked what he dislikes at Starbucks. He responded the he doesn't "like any of the drinks that have been pre-sweetened, in terms of frappuccino and things like that," and that he's "a purist when it comes to coffee."

Just say it like it is, Howie. You don't drink Frappuccinos (Frappuiccini?) because they TASTE LIKE SHIT. Their caramel flavor is bearable, but I'd still be hard-pressed to finish a small. They're bitter, with a tangy, artificial sweetness to them. Nothing about them tastes high-quality or gourmet. I would expect a similar beverage from Dunkin' Donuts.

In general, I think that Starbucks' offerings are very high-quality. Frappuccini is not one of those offerings.

PRODUCT REVIEW: Starbucks Tribute Coffee

Starbucks' new Tribute coffee, celebrating forty years of life, is ironically appropriate. But before I get to that, a peeve. Starbucks has not been around for forty years. Yes, the very first Starbucks was founded in 1971, but it is so distantly related to the current permutation of Starbucks as to be significant in name only. They didn't sell drinks until 1987, when Howard Schultz bought the chain from the founders and rebranded his own burgeoning coffee chain, Il Giornale, as Starbucks. Thus, the Starbucks of today is actually Il Giornale with a different name. I've posted the original logo so you can see the strong similarity between it and Starbucks' current logo. Basically, the Starbucks name is forty years old. Starbucks as it is is only twenty-four.

Now on to the coffee. After my last roast review of Casi Cielo was such a success, I came into this one with high hopes. Sadly, I have had my hopes run through a grinder like so many coffee beans. I said that this coffee is ironically appropriate, and by that I mean it is ironic that a company that has been so known for burnt coffee as to earn the moniker Charbucks should celebrate its anniversary with a blend that is burnt indeed. It is further ironic that a company that made its name and fortune with expensive espresso drinks should celebrate with a roast that doesn't go terribly well in espresso.

As a semi-objective measurement of roast level, I use my grinder, a Rancilio Rocky, and the required grind to get a perfect espresso shot. Most good espresso grinds like Black Cat require grinds in the area of 10 on my grinder. Casi Cielo required a 9, the darkest Starbucks I've ever had required a 4, with most Starbucks coffees requiring a 5. Tribute requires a grind of 5-6, so it's right in line with their other offerings. Amazingly, it tastes darker than this would indicate. I can taste almost nothing but roast. Smooth, yes, but roast nonetheless.

I'm left with some confusion. Until Casi Cielo, I always assumed that Starbucks was actually incompetent, but I now know that they aren't. They can produce an excellent roast if they want to, which means that this coffee is a conscious choice. Why would a company knowingly create a dark, blasted husk of a bean (I mean that in general, not to Tribute specifically)? What flavor profile are they shooting for? To what demographic are they trying to appeal? I'm very confused. Regardless, this was a disappointing coffee. Their standard espresso roast is much better for espresso, and I've had better pour over with a multitude of their other blends and single origins. It's certainly not disgusting, and in less-gourmet times, I might give a thumbs up. But in the face of stiff competition from local roasters and even Starbucks' own selection, I can't recommend this coffee.

Starbucks Tribute Coffee: NOT RECOMMENDED

PRODUCT REVIEW: Starbucks Casi Cielo Coffee

I just bought a half-pound of Starbucks to get me through the snowstorm and gave their seasonal roast, Casi Cielo, a shot. I am legitimately impressed. I knew I was in for something different when the usual setting of "4" on my grinder was way too fine. The darker the roast, the finer the grind, and Starbucks ain't called Charbucks for nothing.

After two blown shots, I was amazed to find the coffee requiring a grind in the "8-9" range. Holy crap! So, I knew it was going to be different, but good? I was about to find out.

It's good! Like, really good! This is easily the best Starbucks coffee that I've ever tasted in espresso. Whereas other times, I bought Starbucks because my Black Cat hadn't arrived in time, or I was unable to make it to Updike's Newtowne or Coffee Exchange, with this, I don't feel as though I'm missing out by drinking it. It's very rich and smooth, always good for espresso, but actually has some fruity bite to it. It's an excellent choice for espresso, be it doubles or singles. I haven't tried a triple, but if it works in a double, it usually does well in a triple, too.

Now, I know that I'm late to the game with this. Starbucks introduced Casa Cielo over three years ago. But that knowledge only leaves me more confused. If Starbucks knows enough to make this, why haven't they applied this to their other coffees? Or their in-house espresso? While I still prefer my favorites (UpTowne, CofEx, and B-Cat), this is a legitimately good coffee and everything Starbucks makes should be like this.

Starbucks Casi Cielo Coffee: RECOMMENDED

P.S.

And just for fun, here's a picture of some latte art that I poured into a cup of Casi Cielo. It was tasty.

Starbucks Stuff

I was in Starbucks today at around 5pm and saw something I haven't seen before. People! On Laptops! Hangin' out! While I would imagine that the crowd of digerati (is that word even still being used?) at Coffee Exchange at the same time is five times the size, it's still impressive. I saw four people. Considering that, in the past, I would see one or two at most, this is a big success. I'd be curious to see the actual connection numbers, but Starbucks will undoubtedly never release the raw data, because that will just show how stupid they were to have not done this years ago.

New Starbucks Machines.

Starbucks' roll-out of their new espresso machines is finally hitting the more rural locations that I usually frequent. Apparently, the machine should be in around 75% of locations, on its way to 100% some time next year. It's part of Starbucks continuing effort to change its direction by staying exactly the same, but saying that it's trying to be different.

I don't mean to bash Starbucks, I actually like them, but their efforts at turning around their fortunes are laughably poor. Instead of unleashing a torrent of business model experimentation, they're doing the same thing. Their food selection is decent, but overpriced and limited. Their WiFi is still limited. Their coffee selection is still limited. The list goes on. The design of the new machine is now on that list. What's the big difference? Well, it grinds beans as opposed to using pre-ground coffee packs. That's good. And it's also shorter! Oooooooh! This means that the barista has a better "connection" with the person ordering the drink by blocking "the visual sight line the customer previously had to watch the drink being made, and for the intimate experience with the barista." If there was ever something that the customer didn't care about, it's that.

But enough about that. How's the machine? First off, it looks different than the picture being passed about. The sides are a copper color and it melds in with the Starbucks aesthetic better. And the baristi are universal in their love of the machine over the old Thermoplans. The big difference that they're reporting is temperature stability. Apparently, under heavy load, the old Thermoplan machines would suffer from pretty bad temperature fluctuations in the shots. I'm assuming that this explains the wide differences in drink quality I've encountered at Starbucks...es.

The biggest difference that I've noticed is the milk steam quality. I haven't had a crappy steam job at any location with the new machines, whereas I've had numerous poor lattes on the old boxes. It's still semi-automated, which means no latte art-ready foam, but it's velvety and feels good on the tongue. Starbucks does a good job of talking up the machine at this online Flash app which also gives you the best view of the machine apart from actually going.

The thing that keeps running through my mind is that, if this machine is as good as they say it is, why does Starbucks insist on using only ONE bean blend? Their current blend is adequate, in that it tastes like coffee and isn't too bitter, or sour, or dark, or anything. It's just this bland thing sitting smack dab in the middle of a dark-roast flavor profile. It's crema level is very poor, and there's simply a lot of room to open up the variety.

Having one blend at Dunkin' Donuts or McDonalds is fine. They're not a coffee shop. But Starbucks is a cafe. They should have half a dozen coffees, at least one more type of espresso, and other ways to explore the coffee world. That's why a cafe exists! If I just wanted a high-quality cup of joe, I'd make it myself. As it stands, local cafes are whomping the 'Bucks in this department.

If Starbucks really wants to push the envelope, which I'm beginning to think that they don't, they should make a machine that can espress multiple bean types. Because until they do that, there's nothing bringing me to Starbucks over Coffee Exchange or Updike's Newtowne save for convenience. And now that I've got a new machine, even that's fading.

Starbucks Nutrition Sheet.

Now THAT is a freaking nutrition sheet. Starbucks does not mess around when it comes to letting you know precisely how many calories you're taking in. Unless you want whole milk. Then you're just left to guess. I'm a bit surprised that the Venti Choco-Waco-Caloriccinno Frappuccino Creme is only about 650 calories with whipped cream. Considering that a large soda at Burger King or McDonalds is in the same ballpark, it's not a bad indulgence.

PRODUCT REVIEW: Starbucks Ice Cream

My first product review of some Häagen-Dazs ice cream motivated me to delve into other brands of ice cream that, without said motivation, I would have never otherwise purchased.

I love coffee, but have never been the biggest fan of coffee ice cream. I've always liked my coffee hot and anything below 130-degrees Fahrenheit seems like a crime. But I like Starbucks. Starbucks seems to make decent supermarket products, so I figured, what the hell. This is Starbucks ice cream after a product refresh that happened earlier in the year. They dropped their ice cream bars, which weren't terribly good, and also jettisoned their more complex flavor concoctions like Mud Pie. Perhaps Starbucks' new-found focus in quality and product will result in something a bit more worthy of the name?

A little surprisingly, it's good! Not amazing, but very good. Coffee ice cream is a flavor that can be easily borked. Unlike vanilla, which regardless of other peccadilloes like poor texture is always just vanilla, can be seriously nasty if done wrong. The first area is the aftertaste. So many coffee ice creams have this horrid, bitter finish, and with ice cream savored, it's the finish that spends the most time lingering on your tongue.

Our taste buds don't work very well at low temperatures, which is why soft-serve ice cream tastes stronger than hard, scooped ice cream. So when eating hard ice cream, the majority of the flavor really emerges after both your mouth and the flavor compounds in your mouth have a chance to warm up. It's in that process that all the ass-like flavors of bad coffee ice cream come to the fore.

In Starbucks coffee, though, that after taste is a smooth, rich, deep caramel that truly reminds me of fine coffee. There's very little chocolate in it, but the fact that I can pick out any flavor notes is worthy of applause.

The swirls of espresso and coffee are a bit of a gimmick, I found. There's no Starbucks Espresso Concentrate on the ingredients list. Still, Starbucks coffee has a fair amount of coffee bite to it without that nasty bitter flavor. I just happened to have some Turkey Hill Colombian Coffee in the freezer, so I performed a taste test. Turkey Hill is, in my opinion, the best mass-market brand you can buy, so this is some good competition for the 'bucks.

Obviously, the Turkey Hill's texture is inferior. There's a lot more air whipped into the Turkey Hill, resulting in a 66g per 1/2 cup compared to Starbucks' 100g. But as with all Turkey Hill, the flavor is a home run. Very good for the price. It's smooth, sweet, with caramel and no bite. Definitely one of the best coffee flavors in the freezer. The Starbucks is a lot denser and more interesting to chew. It's got a stronger coffee bite to it and carries the aromas from your mouth into your nose much better. It's a more subdued flavor, as well. I assume many people would like this, but the stronger primary taste in the Turkey Hill is very pleasant and I wish the Starbucks had it.

All things considered, this is one of the best coffee ice creams on the shelves. I would not hesitate to recommend it to a fan of the flavor.

Starbucks Coffee Ice Cream: HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

My Starbucks Rewards Official Mailing

The details of this plan had been a bit dodgy for awhile, but I now have the official mailing to confirm all of the changes to what tries to be a customer loyalty program.

The similarities are the birthday drink, the 2-hour WiFi, and "offers and coupons." I don't remember free soy milk, but I might be wrong. The big difference is the loss of 10% off all food and drink. I don't like this and I'll explain why.

The Gold Card cost $25, which means that to pay it off, I'd have to spend $250. For a heavy Starbucks user, let's assume a drink and sandwich per day. For the drink, we'll put it right in the middle, the $3.10 grande latte. For the sandwich, the $3.25 artisan roll sandwich. That's $6.35 per day, and let's say three times per week. That's $18.05 per week. 52 weeks in a year puts total cost at $938.60. So we lop $93.86 off the cost, subtract $25, and we're left with $68.86 in savings. For a heavy Starbuck's user, that's a good deal. And if you use it for groups, offices, friends, or just a quick dinner, the discount piles up. In 2009, I estimate that I saved over $250.

Let's look over the details:

• The "exclusive offers" and such amounts to very little.


• The free drink with coffee is good, but if you're drinking that much at home, you don't spend a lot of time at cafes, and for real coffee fans like me, they already get their beans locally.


• I couldn't care less about soy milk (but I would like some free fucking extra shots!)


• Free re-fills are decent


• The two hours of WiFi is a continuing example of Starbucks' cluelessness


• The free drink every 15 stars doesn't come close to matching the 10% discount when its applied to food and drink.

I can understand some of the motivations behind this. Starbucks doesn't want to cut too deeply into margins of heavy users, their profit base, and wants to find a way to involve lighter users for whom the Gold Card made no financial sense. Still, taking value away from the big fans is a bad way to go about this. Instead, they should have found a way to increase value for light users while leaving heavy users alone.

UPDATE 2/12/2010: As if this silly program didn't have enough people annoyed with it, I have just been informed by a Starbucks barista that to get the discounts associated with the card, you must pay with the card. As in, you must either associate a credit card with it or charge the card with cash at the register.

First off, I just want to say that I liked my old Gold card. I also didn't mind this card, even though I preferred it before. I now hate this card. In the previous system, Starbucks had two cards. You could buy the Gold card, or you could register a gift card as a "Starbucks Card," or something along those lines. Each card had different benefits. Before the Gold Card came out, I had one of those cards. It was incredibly annoying because I had to pay with the card to get the benefits of free extra shots and free syrup.

This resulted in the laughably stupid situation where I had to first give cash to the cashier, have them put it on the card, and then pay with the card. Or, if I had $10 on the card and didn't want to go through that whole rigmarole, I restricted myself to a $10 visit.

Why didn't I just associate a credit card with it? Because I didn't want to. If Starbucks is all about choice, why make that choice so problematic? I simply don't like spreading my credit cards about. I have it associated with an Amazon account, and that's it. It's not being paranoid, it's simply being prudent with potentially valuable data.

So now, here we are. Back again to the situation that was supposedly fixed last time. I have this ridiculous middle-man between me and my purchase. Frankly, I'm probably just going to stop bothering. It's just not worth the trouble.

Starbucks Via Ain't Half Bad

I forgot to write about this when I did it, but here it is. I tried that Starbucks Via Challenge. I lost, I suppose. I guessed that the Via was the drip. I haven't had Starbucks coffee in years, so I had nothing to compare it to, but I guess that's not the point. The Via was not disgusting. There was a difference between the two, but nothing about the Via stood out in a "blech! This is crap!" sort of way. I certainly didn't feel the same as the people here.

I haven't had instant coffee in quite a while, but my memories are pretty good, and Via seems to be the best on the market. It's a bit more acidic than the Starbucks drip I tried, and would be a reasonable cup on the go. Would I replace some homemade pour-over coffee, or french press, or even freshly brewed drip, with this? Not a chance. It's the best instant, but not as good as most other fresh options.

Now to bash the test. The acidic wateriness of the coffee compared with acidic wateriness of the drip coffee possibly because they had both been sitting in carafes for an unknown amount of time. If a cup had been freshly brewed and the Via freshly mixed, the experiment would have been better, although admittedly much more difficult to stage. Second, Starbucks drip coffee is frequently mocked for some good reasons.

It's Pike Place launch was a disaster. It was light, weak, with damn-near no body, but sour. The old house roast was too dark, with not enough body to explain the deeply roasted beans. Basically, light roasts should be bright, acidic, and fruity; dark roasts should be less acidic and bright, but with greater body and deeper chocolate tones. I'm not sure what the deal is. Perhaps running such a massive organization results in problems in quality control down to that level, and if I drank more drip from Starbucks I'd feel different. This is a real possibility.

Unfortunately, from my experience, I've never gotten a cup of coffee from Starbucks that wasn't burnt. So that means Via is trying to live up to merely adequate coffee. That it does so is perhaps not a surprise, but, again, all of this is something of a misdirection. It's close to Starbucks brew, but still different. What it certainly is, and what the advertising should focus on, is better than the direct competition, and that in itself is an achievement. Moreover, since my coffee from Starbucks is always burnt, freshly made Via is definitely better than burnt drip. Which is all worse than a big pot of french press made in the morning.

And that's a big problem for coffee purchased, it is never as good as the coffee made at home with cheap, easy methods like a french press, Aeropress, or pour-over:



Starbucks and its espresso exist for a good reason: it costs a lot to make good espresso. You need expensive machines that require maintenance and it requires more than a small amount of skill to get it right and steam good milk. Coffee requires very little work and only a little bit of knowledge to get it right. If you only ever drink drip, trust me, make it at home. You'll be much happier.

UPDATE:12/25/09

I just got some free Via in the mail and had a chance to try it legitimately. There were two big differences between the cup I made and the cup I got to try for free. First, it's cool enough to drink. Second, it's from an actual Via package in a cup.

Where the large karaf of coffee had none of the grittiness that usually accompanies instant coffee, the smaller amount of water in the cup brings it out loud and clear. Second, when the coffee gets cool, it begins to taste like instant coffee. Hot, the differences between it and a Starbucks drip are small. But while good coffee, cooling, is a chance to taste different flavors as they are revealed, Via, like all other instant coffees, becomes unpleasant.

If you drink your coffee while very hot, I think it's still a reasonable purchase if ordinary coffee is too difficult to come by. But otherwise, It's not worth it.

Mmm, carbon.

I've been noticing recently, I do not go to Starbucks as frequently as I once did. No, it doesn't have anything to do with my financial situation. I sell myself on the street, and being the rippling specimen that I am, business is very good.

No, I've just found that my taste for Starbucks coffee is waning. The introduction of the noxiously bad Piadini -which replaced two totally acceptable breakfast sandwiches- didn't help. Starbucks uses a very dark roast. Perhaps this is an attempt to cover up low quality beans, but that's a dangerous game. A very dark roast tastes like charcoal, so it takes a well-calibrated machine, a good analysis of the pull, and very fresh beans to make it taste good. Yes, it can cover up bad beans, but the margin for error during preparation is minuscule.

Generally, the prep is good and the espresso is fine, but man, it just gets dull. There is no complexity to their espresso whatsoever. No richness, or acidic bite. Nothing. I just find myself saying more often than I used to, "if I'm going to drink the calories, I'd rather have something that's really good." And if I'm nowhere near a place to make it, I just wait till I get home. Starbucks' move towards making better coffee with the Clover is a good first step. Still, I think they should move towards providing multiple beans for espresso, as well. This would make them more competitive with smaller cafes that provide superior beans and drinks.

And it just has to be an untenable situation when the only thing bringing me in is the selection of pre-made foods, especially the fruit platter. But those Piadini are amazingly bad. They taste like soap. The worst thing I've ever eaten at a Starbucks. And for a mobile warrior such as myself, the convoluted WiFi arrangement is a nightmare. So, actually, I'd say the thing bringing me in is only the fruit platter.

Now there's a dynamite business model.
.

Coffee and Clover, Over and Over.

The Starbucks in Wayland Square is one of the first *$s in the country to get the coffee machine mentioned in hushed reverence among the coffee elite, the Clover. It is one of 80 that are supposed to be rolled out by the end of 2008 and premiered a short time ago on September 9th. I figured Rhode Island wouldn't get any, so was shocked when I saw a sign at another Schtarbucken announcing the arrival. I hot-footed it over to Wayland Square to commune with Jesus. (Sorry for the abysmal picture quality. Starbucks wouldn't allow me to take photos, so I had to surreptitiously take photos with a cell phone.)

Starbucks is pushing the Clover hard. They have dedicated a large amount of counter space to the machine, grinder, and signage announcing the various beans available for brew. They've also implemented a fair degree of theater. Instead of the hiding the machine behind counter and glass, or placing it on the back counter, far from eyes of the customers, the machine is front and center.

My service was impeccable. The barista was friendly, talked my ear off about the coffee and the machine, and brewed multiple cups just to let me try. It was amazing how difficult it was to get other people to just try the new coffee. It's free coffee, people! I was also fortunate to arrive just as a pot of Starbucks Anniversary Roast was finishing brewing, so I was able to make a direct comparison between the Clover and fresh, standard brew.

My first cup was the El Salvador Pacamara. It was a very bright coffee, especially considering its Latin American root. I wasn't terribly impressed, frankly. It had citrusy notes to it, but I tasted almost no chocolate. As many coffee fanatics have pointed out, this could be because of the beans. Starbucks is a massive corporation that just can't move single-origin beans around its massive supply chain quickly. With that in mind, I'll hold off judgment on the machine for this one.

Since the Anniversary Roast had just been brewed, I was able to compare the ordinary brew to the Clover. Most of Starbucks' blends aren't the best. They're blended, packed, stored, and kept for weeks. Many, if not most, of the terroir of the beans that the Clover is supposedly an A-student at bringing out are lost. Still, I'm comparing like to like, so I think this is still a valid test.

The verdict? The Clover was better. Still, certain things must be taken into account. Starbucks coffee has been the butt of jokes for a very long time. This to the point of losing to McDonalds in a taste test. So Starbucks drip isn't the best comparo.

Also, it wasn't that much better. The notes of the coffee weren't brought out because of finer definition or clarity of flavor, but instead because the brightness was toned down. It was a mellower coffee. This allowed the flavors to come out much more clearly.

My third cup was the one I purchased. the Costa Rica Agrivid. This one seemed to respond to the steeping process of the Clover better than the previous two beans. The Clover flier lists cocoa and lemon as the primary notes and, lo, they were right. Citrus and a very strong and rich cocoa flavor were right on target.


So, in the end, I came away whelmed. Starbucks is charging about double for the Clover coffee, which still isn't terribly expensive, and it's certainly worth it to pay extra for a single-cup brewing method. From a commercial standpoint, it does have value. It's fast. It's clean. It's theatrical. If Starbucks can make a case for it, it could be the ticket to them again being seen as high-quality. Unfortunately, it may require a far greater degree of training and quality control than Starbucks is prepared to achieve. For example, the barista broke the stream of water as it poured into the chamber. A BIG no-no, according to the creator of the Clover. This can drop the temperature of the water a couple of degrees and have a "massive effect on the extraction of chemicals that affect flavor." (Wired Magazine)

If this was a consumer-level product, I would declare it a total rip-off. Remember, this puppy cost $11,000 before Starbucks bought up the company. And what it does could be replicated at home with a little ingenuity and $20 worth of kitchen stuff from Bed Bath & Beyond. Or just a French press. The best cup of coffee I've ever had was brewed by an old, Portuguese woman, and the mighty clover falls to that as well. In the Wired Magazine article about the Clover, the general idea of the clover is explained; if you want to buy coffee beans, be it Blue Mountain, or Kopi Luwak, that cost a fucking fortune, you want a machine that won't mess them up. Great logic. But that caters to a minuscule part of the population. I adore coffee, and even I don't care.

And the machine doesn't even come close to making a case for itself. They say that what you're really paying for is the ability to design custom brew cycles for whatever kind of bean you're using. Specific temperature, time, and bang. But my already stupid-expensive Jura Capresso Z5 is one-forth the cost and DOES MORE. And being able to choose a temperature? Try an electric kettle with a built in thermistor and gauge. I will admit that for a cafe, the sheer speed with which it prepares a cup is to die for. French press requires steeping the coffee for a few minutes. And the theater is quite cool, as the barista delicately stirs the coffee.

But as far as theater goes, a cafe can do better. Try a siphon bar. I've seen one in action at some cafe in Connecticut. You may have seen one, it looks like a distilling setup for making small amounts of moonshine. Or some magic potion. When it comes to theater, there is nothing that even comes close to this jawdroppingly wacky contraption. And if you think eleven grand is bad, try twenty. That's how much a Japanese model of these runs ya'. The machine mentioned in the New York Times article is only from one company, and you can get them from others, but they're still absurdly expensive. Furthermore, I have yet to see a machine that makes anything appreciably better than some good french press.

I'm a gourmet, certainly, but I'm not a ridiculous gourmet. I don't think $1,000 wine is worth it. Wagyu beef tastes inferior to a good prime steak. And chocolate is chocolate, as long as it's good. You pay extra for espresso because it's impossible to make good espresso without an expensive machine. Coffee is another story. If you want good coffee, you can brew it at home, and for all of Clover's ingenuity and convenience, it never gets past that.

The Coffee Fix: Can the $11,000 Clover Machine Save Starbucks?

At Last, a $20,000 Cup of Coffee (May require registration. If so, just go to www.bugmenot.com and get some sign-in info.)

.

Million Dollar Ad Budget Put to Good Use

A new Starbucks opened in my home town of North Kingstown. I'm actually kind of happy it did, because sometimes, I just feel like a Starbucks latte and coffe cake. Regardless, it's got quite a battle ahead of it. North Kingstown has one of the best cafes in the state, Updike's Newtowne, which pretty well thrashes the 'Bucks in quality of coffee used.

Regardless, Starbucks let their presence be known with one hell of a roar. Kind of like listening to a lion that's wearing a clown outfit. Yep, these signs just bleed professionalism.

The Secret Revealed!

Well, I went into a Starbucks, today. It was as I discovered yesterday, a handout of a coffee samples. At first blush, this doesn't seem like a big deal, but I think it kind of is. While they're marketing the Pike Place Roast as their new daily roast, what really makes this important is the return to freshly scooped and ground coffee on premises. It also is the nationwide introduction of cheaper drinks, undoubtedly in response the tailspin (ooh we oh!) of the economy.

All the changes are, obviously, the Pike Place roast, cheaper drinks like cafe misto, on-site scooping and grinding, and, strangely, the old logo on cups. Like, the very old logo. Obviously, they're really trying to drive home the return to tradition, but the logo betrays reality. They're not entirely about a return, perhaps because that is impossible.

Only marketing and Starbucks geeks knew about the old logo, and they also know that the Starbucks which had that logo has very little to do with the Starbucks of today. Today's 'Bucks is the baby of Howard Shultz, through and through. The original owners, who actually started Starbucks in '71, sold the place to Schultz in 1987. Before then, they sold beans, spices, and other weird, hippy stuff... and NO espresso!. While it's cute to go back to the pre-Starbucks Starbucks, at it's heart, it makes little sense.

I mentioned that the logo betrays a deeper reality, that the past is the past and there's no going back. Aside from the change in wording, of course necessitated by Starbucks not actually selling spices, notice that the siren is no longer bare-breasted. I consider this the most important revelation of the day. Scooping coffee? Cheaper drinks? Those are all obvious business decisions that any first year marketing student could come up with. But insight into the very functioning of the company, that's rare. This tiny detail.

A cowardly decision, in my mind. If you don't have the balls to go all the way, don't pretend like you do. I fully understand why they did it, but I still disagree. I would have gone whole-hog. Moreoever, this doesn't bode well. Real change means rocking the boat, if they're too scared of rocking the boat to simply show two, little dots to affirm their dedication to tradition, how the hell can we expect them to have the balls to really rock the boat and effect change.

How the Starbucks Siren Became Less Naughty (Deadprogrammer.com)
The Evolution of the Starbucks Logo (Brand Autopsy)