The Way I See It #666

I'm beginning to hate Time magazine but it is, at very least, good fodder for my recent trend of angry blogging. Megan sent me a link to a Time article about one man's qualms with Starbucks. Since I'm an ex-barista, I thought I'd give it a read and see how much truth could be squeezed from his writing. Sadly, he takes the oh-so-common non-understanding outsider position of the loveably hate-worthy green coffee giant.

So I'll respond.

He starts by saying that Schultz (the owner) was recently lamenting over lack of coffee-smell emanating throughout the store due to flavor-lock bags. He then says the romance is gone because of non hand-ground beans and other issues I'll get to later.

Then he says (to mash all his problems up together): "If I may be so bold, Howard, smelling the coffee isn't the problem — it's getting to it." It takes too long to get coffee because the lines are too long, there always seems to be one less employee working then necessary to handle the rush, but that is hardly the local manager's fault because more employees couldn't fit because of all the cd's and books and "crap" they are trying to sell.

He then says it's not the automatic machines fault because French and Italian cafes use them, and it's impossible to get a seat because of the WiFi Squatters.

Then the argument is that even McDonald's, in recent Consumer Reports, has better rated coffee. And it is too complex to order a drink and there are too many complicated ways of ordering and now they serve breakfast sandwiches as well as other snacks instead of just coffee and it's not that they need more ambiance but...

...more machines, more sales terminals, and when it comes to coffee, "just grind some" he says.

Did that seem disjointed?

It was.

The author of this article doesn’t stick to one topic long enough to actually make a point. He just takes as many stabs at the establishment as possible hoping that one of them strikes a chord with a reader and that reader will say “Oh! Yeah! I agree with that point!”

Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and say that his key point is that Starbucks used to be a great place to go in and grab a “killer cup of coffee” and now it is a poorly run corporate monster that has lost its ability to function smoothly and get coffee to its customer quickly.

Onto some quick answers to this authors qualms:

First off, it is unclear whether the beginning problems (not grinding beans, etc) are issues that Schultz has with the company, or the author has with the company.

Next, if the lines are too long, go somewhere else. Who is forcing you to go to Starbucks in the first place? And that tired quip everyone keeps making about being able to stand on one corner and see two Starbucks? Why don’t you walk to that other Starbucks? Why do you think there are so many? To alleviate long lines. The DMV has lines a thousand times longer than any Starbucks, but you have to go to the DMV. So go ahead and bitch about the DMV, but not only do you not need coffee, but you don’t need Starbucks coffee, and you don’t need that Starbucks’ coffee. So get over the lines.

And the other “crap” they sell? Who cares? Do you get angry when you enter a Target because “Ohmigosh they carry toiletries and DVDs? Make up your mind!” Has anyone griped about Phillip Morris for dipping their greedy fingers into Kraft and a hundred other non-tobacco companies in case cigarette sales go down? No. It’s called smart business. And though it was likely just a mock problem, the “crap” isn’t blocking any more employees from working since all that “crap” is in the lobby, not behind the counter. So if you don’t want anything but coffee to be sold, good luck finding a place that sells only coffee.

Then he mysteriously brings up the automated machines again (which makes me think that the original quote is from Schultz?) and leaves it at that.

As for not being able to get a table because of WiFi squatters? Not only are they not getting a work space for the price of a latte (you have to pay to use the WiFi that Starbucks offers), but do you write articles about how horrible it is that you can’t get a seat at the local famous actor hotspot restaurant? No. In fact, you might never get a seat in that restaurant, but that’s just how it works. Plus, first the author complains that almost a third of the times he shows up to Starbucks he doesn’t even have the 15 minutes to wait for his coffee, but then he turns around and complains that he can’t get a table. Well, which is it? Do you want to rush in, grab your coffee and leave, or grab a coffee and lounge around the shop?

As for McDonalds having better coffee according to Consumer Reports? I won’t even go into the fact that most of the public doesn’t even have a palette that can distinguish between merlot and cabernet, let alone dark roast versus light roast. This random fact has two possible outcomes: one, either it’s right (McDonald’s coffee is better), or two, it’s wrong (Starbucks has better coffee). If the prior is true, then why do people still go to Starbucks and pay 5 times the price? And if you chock it up to trickery and good advertising, then Starbucks is doing something right by getting people to buy worse coffee for more money. Starbucks hasn’t changed their coffee except for one major way: now they use flavor-lock bags. So the author, who seems to have loved the old Starbucks coffee, either has such a poor palette that he should just go to McDonalds, or he likes the taste of stale coffee better than fresh coffee since Starbucks coffee is the same beans and the same process as before, just more fresh due to a revolutionary air-lock system.

As for the complicatedness of ordering? The 10,000+ possible combinations? Just because one company (Microsoft) offers few products (very arguable) and does well, does not mean that every company should follow suit. If Starbucks limited its menu, people would complain that there is not enough personalization. Take In N’ Out and people’s lack of being content over the simple menu. Now it’s fries animal style and a three by three with no bun and a mixed milkshake. People want more choices. This is not something you can complain about. Is it too hard to order? Awww. I’m sorry. But if you go to Philly and order a cheesesteak from a roadside eatery and you order wrong they send you to the back of the line. You have to order exactly right or you don’t get food. At least Starbucks tries to help you with all the choices they allow you to make.

How are breakfast sandwiches a problem? I must admit it is very strange, but it’s not a problem. I used to work at a tiny, family owned coffee shop that probably made less than $800 a day and guess what, we made sandwiches. If people want something, a smart businessperson will offer it to the people.

So the answer? The author says more machines, more sales-persons, and to grind some coffee. I won’t even get into the details of the machines that actually do grind coffee as you order it and the only difference being that it is not done by hand (which, if anything causes more disparity and worse coffee). But more machines and more workers is not a solution.

Let’s work the author’s one attempt at a thread through this whole thing (how long it takes to get coffee) through his complaints.

If he is complaining that all the cd’s and breakfast sandwiches and choices are slowing down the people in front of him and making it take too long (which I’m guessing is his point, since certain points like the WiFi Squatters have nothing to do with how long it takes to get coffee) then point taken. But more machines and more sales-people means a bigger store, more rent, more cost for the extra employees, more cost for the extra managers and assistant managers needed, more cost for the machines and the service of said machines, and what does that all equal? A need to sell more “crap” to make up for all that cost which will slow the lines down even more

If the line is too long and you are that horribly disturbed by this establishment, then go somewhere else. There are obviously (judging by the massive lines you hate so much) more than enough people who are willing to wait in 15 minute lines, trudge through the cd’s and crap, wait for the person in front of them to order a breakfast sandwich, have a mental breakdown due to too many choices, and pay too much for coffee worse than McDonald’s.

but I know that won’t happen since the people here aren’t exactly the kind you’d walk up to and ask for directions. Or the time. Or even a piece of gum. I’m talking to C and I’m getting the vibe, though not from her, that I’m acting too excited about our talking. The truth is that she’s a nice person and I’m having a great time talking and this is fun and this really has nothing to do with flirtation. This isn’t an after the after-after hours kind of thing where it’s no longer about even upholding the facade of interest but about sloppy, drunken sex and deep morning regret.

I’m standing in the middle of the room, probably looking lost, when R comes up to me and says something. But either he is talking too softly or the ambient noise in the room is too loud. Maybe it’s both. He speaks and it comes out as nothing.

______ or ________

That’s all I hear. Or.

Mute voice falling on deaf ears.

_______ or whiskey?

How do I answer a question (or what I assume is a question reflecting on the inflection at the end of his sentence) that I don’t know all the options of? I shrug and say something to make him go away.

Whiskey

I suddenly wonder if he was simply having a hard time making up his mind about what sort of liquor to imbibe or if he was offering to buy me a drink. If that latter, I wish I had not said whiskey.

My head jolts up during the crack of a cue against a ball. C smiles at me while M and A talk, drink their beers, talk louder. I blink a few times since my contacts are now dry. In true, slightly drunken form, I toss out a comment to nobody and everybody.

I can’t get a Deathcab song out of my head
Oh my gosh! Me too!
So much so, that I just had a dream with the song playing in the background
Yeah?
It was a dream about sausage -the food- not the...

I trail off realizing that differentiating between the edible substance and the euphemistic symbol will only untruthfully dig me into a ditch I don’t want to explain my way out of.

The dream wasn’t even really about sausage. I dreamed I was driving home with her, that Deathcab song playing from somewhere like we were in a music video. Nothing specific happened, there was no flash of light, no long thought out conclusion, I just knew. It was over. Something about the way we were talking. Then in true dream-style I skipped to after I dropped her off and I was walking down an alleyway (to get home?) and there was something about sausages and cigarettes but I can’t remember what and that’s not even what the dream was about and then the crack of a pool ball woke me up.

Billy Jean came on over the crappy speakers and I did a few Michael Jackson-esque moves to make my friends laugh while secretly watching a guy do a bump of China White out of the filter end of a Parliament. I considered moonwalking. Changed my mind. I can’t moonwalk. Then I notice people getting tense. I think it’s the music.

Why is Michael Jackson making people tense?

I have an overwhelming desire to change the song. I want to hear that Deathcab song even though it won’t leave my head and playing it again will likely make things worse. I can see the jukebox across the room and all I need to do it put in two quarters and I can override the autoplay feature.

But there’s a problem.

A man who I immediately assume is the devil incarnate is getting into a fight with four other men. He’s wearing a blood-red shirt, a black tie, and a black suit. His shoes are impeccably shiny. I shake my head at the cliche. The devil should have a better sense of fashion.

He is so fast and so good at fighting that it’s not like watching those kung-fu films where you can hardly follow the guy’s fist or feet, but exactly the opposite. Everything moves slower. He uppercuts a guy into the air, then seems to walk, nonchalantly, to the next guy, who has yet to even catch up visually to the devil-man. He jumps into the air and crushes him with the heel of his foot. He then walks back over and before the guy he uppercutted even hits the ground, he kicks him, mid-chest, which pushes the guy across the room and into the other two guys he is fighting.

All of this is happening in front of the jukebox.

All I want is to change the damned song.

Then I woke up.

Aqua Teen Hunger Force...Assemble!

I was given a suggestion to talk about THIS ARTICLE rather than the current heated debate about morality and ethics. Well, I guess it still has to do with both, but it sure is a whole lot funnier.

Here's a joke for you:

How many people does it take to recognize a supposed bomb is just a bunch of light bulbs?

Give up?

The police, Counter Terrorism, The Joint Terrorism Task Force, and Homeland Security (as well as fire departments and bomb squads).

Turner Broadcasting recently began an advertising campaign which included light-bright-like signs of Err from ATHF flipping everyone the bird. These were placed in at least 5 major cities on walls, bridges, signs, etc. Multiple weeks after they were hanging there, someone in Boston called one in as a bomb. All hell broke loose and $75,000 later (including costs to blow up at least one of the signs in order to suppress the "actual explosion") they realize it's an advertising campaign.

The problem is that they keep calling it a hoax, and that the attorney general made a bunch of comments about how the act was meant to cause fear and intimidation and the devices (which they keep calling packages?) were meant to look like bombs.

I'll let you decide if this looks like a bomb:



The strangest part is that they (the news) keeps calling this a "hoax." A hoax is something intended to deceive or defraud. If the original intent of the signs was advertisement, which it obviously was, than this was not a hoax meant to cause fear.

I don't know about you, but I have never been drawn in to use a product because they intentionally made me fear for my life (and I mean really fear, not roller-coaster fear).

Basically, the city went a little bit overboard, caused more panic than would have been caused if they had handled it differently (or done a tiny bit of research before jumping in head first) and tried to make everyone think they had no choice.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm glad the city responded so swiftly to what was seen as a potential bomb threat, but what's next? Someone is going to call in a phone booth as a potential bomb because someone has etched "F___ America" onto the glass?

I never thought I'd say this, but if the older generation were either more in tune with the younger, or would listen more to the younger, Boston probably could have saved $75,000 which, you know, might have been useful to use towards schools and such.