Page 1 of 1 pages
The sidebar urges us to be respectful in comments and I will try. But it is difficult as this article (insofar as it reflects the book; I can’t be sure how much the reviewer is agreeing or simply reporting) suffers from exactly the same thing it claims is at the heart of Starbucks success: “style, status, identity and aspiration.”
Some people just can’t put Starbucks into perspective: it’s a decent place to get a cup of coffee, with comfortable seats, far-better-than-usual decor and wifi. If somehow you were expecting more and you are disappointed and therefore angry, you have only yourself to blame.
Starbucks has made a significant contribution—added thousands of third places—and the article both acknowledges that as a positive and then tears it down with a lot of high-sounding pretentious language because it spread third places to locations that never had them, like shopping centers and strip malls, and because it isn’t the hippy-dippy coffee house with guys in black turtlenecks and berets they remember from the Doby Gillis show. Some people are just never satisfied and the author of this review (or book) seems to be one of them.
This is a creepy article/book which attempts to tear down one of the few genuine successes of mass-market capitalism.
Posted by David Sucher on Dec 31, 2009 at 11:05 PM
I agree with the previous comments. With “mass market capitalism” itself having destroyed the commons where people could gather and chat over a cup of whatever, especially in cold weather, what do we have left in order to get out of one’s private space (house, apartment, live-in auto) to a place that’s heated or air-conditioned where one can sit and read? Not much - the library (can’t eat or drink there), prison (not good for the resume or appropriate human contact), another person’s place (another success of capitalism to engender fear in opening our houses to others and leading us to believe that “home” is only for “family” - nuclear that is). The destruction of this last option works well also for preventing the kind of “around the kitchen table” social change activities of the past. Welcome to the slavery we’ve been under for the past 50 plus years. BTW, I go to places like Starbucks with my own travel mug of tea made at home.
Posted by Art Light on Jan 1, 2010 at 11:54 AM
“Simon joins a recent spade of books on the middle class…”
Please lean what words mean before you use them!
Posted by cyberella2002 on Jan 1, 2010 at 5:31 PM
So this Simon shows us how we really live? Really? Or perhaps he overthinks Starbucks just a little bit.
Simon’s brand of facile, superficially clever analysis shouldn’t be taken all that seriously. This is social criticism as parlor game.
Posted by Jon Mon on Jan 1, 2010 at 5:43 PM
*Our* coffee? How *we* live? Perhaps I’m not your typical reader, but I think I’m middle-class (albeit lower!), and I never did get over wondering why people pay so much for a cup of coffee. I’ve think I’ve been to Starbucks about four times, ever; they do produce very fine beverages, but not worth it.
In praise of Starbucks, though, they do provide a readily available place for cautious Craigslist dates to meet safely, for under-21s or under-18s to get away from regimentation and supervision, and yes, for folks to talk politics or philosophy. Maybe not like the coffee houses of yore, but we adapt. We humans are often capable of expressing our individuality even in environments of, shall we say, corporate conformity.
Posted by Swish on Jan 6, 2010 at 11:21 AM
01 April 1996, I was driving with a van load of fellow workers to an after-work class. NPR’s “All Things Considered” was on, and the announcer was telling about the phenomenal growth of Starbucks, and how they were coping. The demand was so great in the NYC area that Starbucks had contracted to build a brewing facility with huge vats in Seattle, and a pipeline for coffee was being built from Seattle to NYC to service the NYC market.
One of the engineers riding with me was, like, “Wow! What will they think of next?”
I had to remind him of the date, and that this was NPR’s latest contribution to its traditional annual joke.
Other than that, Starbucks has never done anything for me, nor have I done anything for them.
Posted by scorp on Jan 7, 2010 at 8:17 PM
The tone of this piece doesn’t surprise me, given the overt socialism that’s typical of In These Times, but it’s POV’s like this one that marginalize the far-left in the national discourse.
And it’s not only both authors’ self-serving and cynical tones, but the very notion that the profit motive is bad, and that ANYONE has the right to judge the middle class, or any other segment of our society.
This is a demagogic culture war piece, plain and simple. Those who share this POV will say, “Yeah, you’re right,” while those who do not will say, “Huh”?
Posted by bastasia on Jan 8, 2010 at 9:15 AM
What’s wrong with Starbucks?
Their coffee tastes good, they will let you sit for hours with a book or a laptop and they will always let you use the bathroom (even if you are not a customer).
What’s not to like?
It’s a COFFEE SHOP for God’s sake, not a metaphor for America!
And, as fast food establishments go, it’s better than average.
Posted by Gregory A. Butler on Jan 8, 2010 at 3:08 PM
I found Richard Greenwald’s article to be a bit… rambling.
I almost picked up a book in the second hand store today about Starbucks. It was called “Starbucked” I believe. I’m interested in one day having my own coffee shop and so I research, on and off, coffee. Seems to me that I therefore might get something out of that book. I should probably go back and nab it.
Starbucks is what it is. It’s not culinary (some use the term ‘specialty’, which I don’t care for) coffee. They’ve improved the espressos. They aren’t ‘proper’ espressos, but they are better than they were. I don’t know what they did. However, The in-store drip coffee, to my taste buds, is undrinkable. I take my coffee black. (Starbucks coffee is not strong. It’s weak and bitter.)
Starbucks has some drinks that are great. But they are focussed on profits, and, therefore, turnover. They are amazing marketers. If they were half as good at delivering a decent product (many wouldn’t know the difference), the coffee would also be amazing. But I’m not trying to knock them, even though here in Toronto I flit around the city checking out the independents which leave Starbucks in the dust. They are proliferating like mad. And it’s wonderful. (But not all of them are the real deal.) You can find good, and excellent, espressos and Europeans (espresso based drinks) in a fair number of these indendents. And where do their customers come from? Some of them trickle up from the chains. It’s all good.
I am happy that Starbucks is there, in some ways. You know what you’re going to get when you see a Starbucks store. I still pop in on occasion. Rarely is the service bad. And I’ve met many friendly strangers in Starbucks stores over the years. If being there helped to make them relax and open up to me, and vice versa, then Starbucks hasn’t been all bad. (A former Canadian deputy prime minister started a conversation with me once. Another time, Someone who played ping pong with Fidel Castro and chatted it up with Noam Chomsky accepted my offer of the crossword puzzle in my paper, which she was routing around for, and then started chatting with me. She ended up offering to leave me a book, by Eduardo Galeano, with her condo door man, across the street, for me to pick up whenever I wanted. I did so a few days later.) There are good drinks, cold and hot, if you know what to order. The hot chocolate stinks. The mochas, however, are awesome. Always order those with an extra pump (which they shouldn’t charge you for, unless I’m here giving them ideas). When they do their frappuccinos properly, they are excellent. Their tea is crap though.
Baristas, who will most often have no idea how to use an espresso machine that isn’t fully automated, put up with a lot. And they manage to make it look easy. But trust me. It isn’t easy satisfying everyone in a long line up when there are a zillion drinks to remember and all those people are watching you. You should get a degree for learning it all. I did it for a short while and wasn’t even close to pulling it off. Baristas are Starbucks best, and least appreciated, asset. Isn’t that the way it goes in a capitalist paradise? Workers, who rich people would be screwed without, don’t matter. ‘Associates’ my ace!
Starbucks baristas have looked after me well over the years. Starbucks, the company, is a product of the neoliberal capitalism that elites love and the majority, through indifference, has allowed to flourish. In that context, there’s nothing unusual about Starbucks and it’s hollowness. One needn’t be bothered, too greatly, by it’s existence. The system which it is a part of is another matter.
Posted by Arby on Jan 16, 2010 at 11:02 PM
The only problem I can see with Starbucks , and this can go for any business that imports products from another region of the country or another nation ; is the cost of fuel and overhead , which basically is a sustainability issue…..
Globalization can cause problems for growers in situation such as this , because they are forced to sell for prices that are not profitable…..
Now if one wishes to pay 3 and 4 dollars for a cup of coffee , thats up to the individual…...
Posted by blackhorse on Feb 3, 2010 at 8:19 AM
“A venture capitalist who knows the business intimately cited Starbucks as a company that has recognised and responded brilliantly to a cultural need. The caffeine and sugar in the coffee, with their energising effects, are certainly part of the equation, but the chain also offers something much more primal. ‘It’s about warm milk and a bottle,’ he says. ‘One of my colleagues said, “If I could put a nipple on it, I’d be a multimillionaire”.’ “
Posted by Major Major on Mar 16, 2010 at 3:54 PM
PS: think about that the next time you pull out a flesh-colored filter cigarette.
Posted by Major Major on Mar 17, 2010 at 7:47 AM
Naw, you don’t know anything about the lower classes. Just because there’s a body of academics on the subject doesn’t mean that reading books and experiencing the people are one and the same.
That said, people complaining because ITT sounds “socialist” is kind of amusing. A leftist publication sounding leftist? Wow, that’s a stretch…
Oh, and Starbucks isn’t *that* great, even if you like capitalist profit margins. We’ve got a coffee shop here in Columbus, Ohio that’s way better. Their coffee doesn’t taste burnt, the frozen lattes are not cloyingly sweet (and you can even get them with sugar-free flavor syrups), the business is locally-owned, and if you can’t see spending that much on a ready-made coffee drink, they have bagged coffee you can take home and brew yourself. Which is also not burnt-tasting. I don’t know what it is with Americans and French roast, but clearly we have a long way to go.
Plus there are board games. You’re not expected to just sit there and look trendy and ironic. You can actually interact with other people. Even kids find the place enjoyable, without it being dumbed down for them.
If you’re in Columbus and haven’t been by Crimson Cup yet, you really should go.
Posted by Dana Seilhan on Apr 4, 2010 at 11:41 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
The sidebar urges us to be respectful in comments and I will try. But it is difficult as this article (insofar as it reflects the book; I can’t be sure how much the reviewer is agreeing or simply reporting) suffers from exactly the same thing it claims is at the heart of Starbucks success: “style, status, identity and aspiration.”
Some people just can’t put Starbucks into perspective: it’s a decent place to get a cup of coffee, with comfortable seats, far-better-than-usual decor and wifi. If somehow you were expecting more and you are disappointed and therefore angry, you have only yourself to blame.
Starbucks has made a significant contribution—added thousands of third places—and the article both acknowledges that as a positive and then tears it down with a lot of high-sounding pretentious language because it spread third places to locations that never had them, like shopping centers and strip malls, and because it isn’t the hippy-dippy coffee house with guys in black turtlenecks and berets they remember from the Doby Gillis show. Some people are just never satisfied and the author of this review (or book) seems to be one of them.
This is a creepy article/book which attempts to tear down one of the few genuine successes of mass-market capitalism.
I agree with the previous comments. With “mass market capitalism” itself having destroyed the commons where people could gather and chat over a cup of whatever, especially in cold weather, what do we have left in order to get out of one’s private space (house, apartment, live-in auto) to a place that’s heated or air-conditioned where one can sit and read? Not much - the library (can’t eat or drink there), prison (not good for the resume or appropriate human contact), another person’s place (another success of capitalism to engender fear in opening our houses to others and leading us to believe that “home” is only for “family” - nuclear that is). The destruction of this last option works well also for preventing the kind of “around the kitchen table” social change activities of the past. Welcome to the slavery we’ve been under for the past 50 plus years. BTW, I go to places like Starbucks with my own travel mug of tea made at home.
“Simon joins a recent spade of books on the middle class…”
Please lean what words mean before you use them!
So this Simon shows us how we really live? Really? Or perhaps he overthinks Starbucks just a little bit.
Simon’s brand of facile, superficially clever analysis shouldn’t be taken all that seriously. This is social criticism as parlor game.
*Our* coffee? How *we* live? Perhaps I’m not your typical reader, but I think I’m middle-class (albeit lower!), and I never did get over wondering why people pay so much for a cup of coffee. I’ve think I’ve been to Starbucks about four times, ever; they do produce very fine beverages, but not worth it.
In praise of Starbucks, though, they do provide a readily available place for cautious Craigslist dates to meet safely, for under-21s or under-18s to get away from regimentation and supervision, and yes, for folks to talk politics or philosophy. Maybe not like the coffee houses of yore, but we adapt. We humans are often capable of expressing our individuality even in environments of, shall we say, corporate conformity.
01 April 1996, I was driving with a van load of fellow workers to an after-work class. NPR’s “All Things Considered” was on, and the announcer was telling about the phenomenal growth of Starbucks, and how they were coping. The demand was so great in the NYC area that Starbucks had contracted to build a brewing facility with huge vats in Seattle, and a pipeline for coffee was being built from Seattle to NYC to service the NYC market.
One of the engineers riding with me was, like, “Wow! What will they think of next?”
I had to remind him of the date, and that this was NPR’s latest contribution to its traditional annual joke.
Other than that, Starbucks has never done anything for me, nor have I done anything for them.
The tone of this piece doesn’t surprise me, given the overt socialism that’s typical of In These Times, but it’s POV’s like this one that marginalize the far-left in the national discourse.
And it’s not only both authors’ self-serving and cynical tones, but the very notion that the profit motive is bad, and that ANYONE has the right to judge the middle class, or any other segment of our society.
This is a demagogic culture war piece, plain and simple. Those who share this POV will say, “Yeah, you’re right,” while those who do not will say, “Huh”?
What’s wrong with Starbucks?
Their coffee tastes good, they will let you sit for hours with a book or a laptop and they will always let you use the bathroom (even if you are not a customer).
What’s not to like?
It’s a COFFEE SHOP for God’s sake, not a metaphor for America!
And, as fast food establishments go, it’s better than average.
I found Richard Greenwald’s article to be a bit… rambling.
I almost picked up a book in the second hand store today about Starbucks. It was called “Starbucked” I believe. I’m interested in one day having my own coffee shop and so I research, on and off, coffee. Seems to me that I therefore might get something out of that book. I should probably go back and nab it.
Starbucks is what it is. It’s not culinary (some use the term ‘specialty’, which I don’t care for) coffee. They’ve improved the espressos. They aren’t ‘proper’ espressos, but they are better than they were. I don’t know what they did. However, The in-store drip coffee, to my taste buds, is undrinkable. I take my coffee black. (Starbucks coffee is not strong. It’s weak and bitter.)
Starbucks has some drinks that are great. But they are focussed on profits, and, therefore, turnover. They are amazing marketers. If they were half as good at delivering a decent product (many wouldn’t know the difference), the coffee would also be amazing. But I’m not trying to knock them, even though here in Toronto I flit around the city checking out the independents which leave Starbucks in the dust. They are proliferating like mad. And it’s wonderful. (But not all of them are the real deal.) You can find good, and excellent, espressos and Europeans (espresso based drinks) in a fair number of these indendents. And where do their customers come from? Some of them trickle up from the chains. It’s all good.
I am happy that Starbucks is there, in some ways. You know what you’re going to get when you see a Starbucks store. I still pop in on occasion. Rarely is the service bad. And I’ve met many friendly strangers in Starbucks stores over the years. If being there helped to make them relax and open up to me, and vice versa, then Starbucks hasn’t been all bad. (A former Canadian deputy prime minister started a conversation with me once. Another time, Someone who played ping pong with Fidel Castro and chatted it up with Noam Chomsky accepted my offer of the crossword puzzle in my paper, which she was routing around for, and then started chatting with me. She ended up offering to leave me a book, by Eduardo Galeano, with her condo door man, across the street, for me to pick up whenever I wanted. I did so a few days later.) There are good drinks, cold and hot, if you know what to order. The hot chocolate stinks. The mochas, however, are awesome. Always order those with an extra pump (which they shouldn’t charge you for, unless I’m here giving them ideas). When they do their frappuccinos properly, they are excellent. Their tea is crap though.
Baristas, who will most often have no idea how to use an espresso machine that isn’t fully automated, put up with a lot. And they manage to make it look easy. But trust me. It isn’t easy satisfying everyone in a long line up when there are a zillion drinks to remember and all those people are watching you. You should get a degree for learning it all. I did it for a short while and wasn’t even close to pulling it off. Baristas are Starbucks best, and least appreciated, asset. Isn’t that the way it goes in a capitalist paradise? Workers, who rich people would be screwed without, don’t matter. ‘Associates’ my ace!
Starbucks baristas have looked after me well over the years. Starbucks, the company, is a product of the neoliberal capitalism that elites love and the majority, through indifference, has allowed to flourish. In that context, there’s nothing unusual about Starbucks and it’s hollowness. One needn’t be bothered, too greatly, by it’s existence. The system which it is a part of is another matter.
The only problem I can see with Starbucks , and this can go for any business that imports products from another region of the country or another nation ; is the cost of fuel and overhead , which basically is a sustainability issue…..
Globalization can cause problems for growers in situation such as this , because they are forced to sell for prices that are not profitable…..
Now if one wishes to pay 3 and 4 dollars for a cup of coffee , thats up to the individual…...
“A venture capitalist who knows the business intimately cited Starbucks as a company that has recognised and responded brilliantly to a cultural need. The caffeine and sugar in the coffee, with their energising effects, are certainly part of the equation, but the chain also offers something much more primal. ‘It’s about warm milk and a bottle,’ he says. ‘One of my colleagues said, “If I could put a nipple on it, I’d be a multimillionaire”.’ “
PS: think about that the next time you pull out a flesh-colored filter cigarette.
Naw, you don’t know anything about the lower classes. Just because there’s a body of academics on the subject doesn’t mean that reading books and experiencing the people are one and the same.
That said, people complaining because ITT sounds “socialist” is kind of amusing. A leftist publication sounding leftist? Wow, that’s a stretch…
Oh, and Starbucks isn’t *that* great, even if you like capitalist profit margins. We’ve got a coffee shop here in Columbus, Ohio that’s way better. Their coffee doesn’t taste burnt, the frozen lattes are not cloyingly sweet (and you can even get them with sugar-free flavor syrups), the business is locally-owned, and if you can’t see spending that much on a ready-made coffee drink, they have bagged coffee you can take home and brew yourself. Which is also not burnt-tasting. I don’t know what it is with Americans and French roast, but clearly we have a long way to go.
Plus there are board games. You’re not expected to just sit there and look trendy and ironic. You can actually interact with other people. Even kids find the place enjoyable, without it being dumbed down for them.
If you’re in Columbus and haven’t been by Crimson Cup yet, you really should go.
:)
__________________________
Hair Transplant, Hair Restoration, San Diego Hair Transplant, Los Angeles Hair Restoration
register a new account »Posting Security