digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

The secret Starbucks coffee - it's all about product sabotage!

news.bbc.co.uk — Really interesting article about how companies intentionally sabotage their best products in order to get richer customers to buy more expensive products that are often worse. Starbucks have a cheaper, better coffee that doesn't appear on the menu. Read it, and realise how much you're played by these businesses! Get a better deal for yourself

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ekso, on 10/12/2007, -54/+33But really, Starbucks coffee sucks. 90% of their menu has MILK and/or some other fat addition. And if you order a expresso it still has some milk taste on it from the previous orders. Coffee from a Bialleti is way much better (and cheaper).
    • Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -17/+98Friends don't let friends drink Starbucks
    • Saintlink, on 10/12/2007, -24/+39Starbucks and bottled water are proof that Americans spend and then think, in that order. I love their coffee, but refuse to support such a racket.
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -44/+39Whatever, Starbucks rules my ass. Caramel frappuccino is worth its weight in liquified orgasms.
    • AndrewJC, on 10/12/2007, -8/+70I'll gladly pay for goods and services that I can't make or do for myself. Since I don't have the capability of making steamed milk or brewing espresso, I'll gladly pay a couple bucks when I have the urge to drink a latte.
    • diggywiggit, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6The secret of starbucks cofee is the hidden ingredient: Illuminati

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxXM65-RplA&mode=related&search=
    • dubbin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20lactophobe.
    • cdahlkvist, on 10/12/2007, -18/+57What's with all the hate?

      Starbucks has some of the best coffee (at least in the sense of beans for brewing at home) in the country.

      Is anyone else getting tired of the "I hate them because they are a big, American Corporation" crap?

      Starbucks...the Microsoft of coffee....we hate them because it's cool to hate the leader.

      Get off it and go buy a Frappacino.
    • merm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21>Since I don't have the capability of making steamed milk or brewing espresso, I'll gladly pay a couple bucks when I have the urge to drink a latte.

      It's actually easier than one might think, if you can make a cup of hot tea, you can make a latte that tastes better and costs a lot less than the Starbucks variety. And don't think that you're only spending a "couple bucks". The amount that many people spend at Starbucks during their working years could buy a 4 year degree at a respectable university, or fund a modest retirement.

      Starbuck's cost on their coffee drinks are less than $0.05 for their espresso drinks, and less than $0.20 for their milk-infused drinks. Despite the appearance, both Coffee and Espresso are not difficult to make at home, and aren't expensive either. Including a home espresso machine (pays for itself in about 6-12 months at Starbucks prices).
    • kf6zql, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21Saintlink,

      In the last month I've been in the UK, Germany, and Spain. It's murder getting water from the tap, they only give you bottled water. When I stay at a persons home, they drink bottled water, never tap. Bottled water is by far not an "American" thing.
    • ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -23/+15I hate Starbucks for only one reason: Their biggest customer base is made up of pretentious cretins.

      I don't hate them because they're #1. I'd hate them even if they were the underdog... Like, for example, Apple Computer. They're an underdog. Do I hate them for their superior products? No. I would like to have some of their products (just like Starbucks coffee), and would certainly consider buying their products. But, nonetheless, I hate the COMPANY because their biggest customer base is, once again, made up of pretentious cretins, and their whole IMAGE is based around attracting ONLY these kinds of people.

      It's a simple desire on my part to not be associated with shallow scum. This is the same reason I don't go to bars frequented by metrosexuals, the same reason I don't want to buy a McMansion and move into a dull suburban neighborhood. I doesn't mean I hate the suburbs.
    • Shivetya, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3ilyag ,

      you must hate luxury car buyers too. I ditched my G35 (just a year old) because I could not handle the pretentious dealer or other owners. Bonus : They gave away Starbucks coffee in their waiting area - had a Starbucks branded coffee/hot chococlate machine.

      Loved the performance aspects of the car, just could not stomach the atmosphere.
    • cdahlkvist, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28@ilyag

      You hate it because you want to be a social misfit on the "I have to hate something that is popular" bandwagon.

      The fact that you assume their customer base is made up of pretentious cretins makes you a pretentious cretin.
    • ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7cdahlkvist:

      I made references to Apple Computer for precisely the reason that they are NOT popular. Popularity is irrelevant. The only thing relevant to my point is the personality and lifestyles of the people who make up the primary consumer base of a particular product and/or service. I do not want to be in their "group".

      You might wonder what the customers have to do with the company that makes products for them. How it relates is that, in order to SELL to these people, they have to mold their image so that they appear to be a part of this "group". This is what turns me off.

      Hmm, on more thought, perhaps the word "hate" is inappropriate. I'm really just turned off by these companies. Their marketing works in reverse on me. By targeting specific segments of society, they become completely unappealing to other segments of society. For these specific companies, I happen to be in the group that finds them unappealing.
    • wysteria, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@merm
      You make some good points. For a long while, I had my own cappacino maker and made my own versions of the most popular latte drinks that Starbucks could offer. Saved me time (didn't have to go to the store) and saved me money (obviously). I was actually rather proud of myself too, there wasn't any drink that I couldn't make. My friends and family loved it.

      But, after a while, there's one thing that I realized I couldn't replicate. No matter how hard I tried, my house just didn't give the same inviting or social atmosphere as the starbucks coffee shop. And that, I believe, is what most people are willing to pay for (myself included).

      In regards to other coffee shops .. my experience has told me that they don't offer the same experience. Either the coffee shop itself was a dump (I wouldn't recommend that any eat anything in a place that dirty) or the barrista's were just plain rude (in my experience .. 90% of the time, at starbucks, the barrista's are courteous).

      So, can we technically make our own cheap latte drinks .. sure. But, that's not all that we're paying for.
    • wysteria, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@ilyag

      "It's a simple desire on my part to not be associated with shallow scum. "

      Such an ironic statement. Really, just think about that.
    • dmoney06, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@shivetya

      You got rid of a car because the dealer was 'pretentious', along with other owners? WTF!? How often were you in the dealership in this one year, or talking with other owners? If the car performs well and you like it, why the ***** does it matter about the dealer and some other owners, who you won't see 98% of the time anyways?
    • ryan_merket, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ekso

      You have absolutly no business telling people what good coffee is when you spell espresso, "EXPRESSO".

      And for all of you people who think Starbucks has good "coffee", please do a LITTLE bit of research, and go to a coffee shop that has an in-house roaster (where they actually roast their coffee THEMSELVES).

      That brings me to another point, a "Frappacino" is NOT coffee. It is caramel, chocolate, milk, and Starbucks burnt espresso.
    • elroy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Starbucks and the like are certainly high profit, but it's all about service -- not simply the product.

      1. Coffee shops have really nice, expensive espresso machines. I have a machine too, but the cup it makes isn't nearly as good.

      2. Making your own takes time and effort. There's preparation and clean-up time involved. Coffee shops are faster. What's your time worth?

      There's value in what a coffee shop has to offer, just the same as a car wash or lube shop. Yes, I can change my own oil or wash my own car, but it takes time -- and it's worth the fee for me not to expend my productive time on such tasks. So, I feel justified paying $2 for my triple espresso, when it's good quality and hassle-free.
    • Iandefor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"What's with all the hate?

      Starbucks has some of the best coffee (at least in the sense of beans for brewing at home) in the country.

      Is anyone else getting tired of the "I hate them because they are a big, American Corporation" crap?

      Starbucks...the Microsoft of coffee....we hate them because it's cool to hate the leader.

      Get off it and go buy a Frappacino."

      Meh, I can get fair trade coffee *for sure* [Starbucks has a checkered history with fair trade] at the local coffee joints, and I'm supporting a local businessman at the same time. I also prefer the coffee at some of the local places- people at the Starbucks where I am do long pulls. Long pulls == bitter coffee.

      By *not* buying Starbucks, I'm getting better, cheaper and fairly-acquired coffee that benefits my local economy. Tell me again why I should buy Starbucks?
    • alej744, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Coffee sucks, Energy Drinks ftw!!
  • happytex757, on 10/12/2007, -4/+42The sad thing, I'd still couldn't afford their cheapest stuff. :)
    • Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -19/+11Oh christ cry me a river... you can get an espresso drink at Sbux for under $2 american. Maybe you can't justify spending that every day, but if you wanted one once in a while price is not a barrier.

      There are lots of things most people can't afford every day.
  • flake, on 10/12/2007, -11/+24Nothing new here, check this out instead:

    http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html
    • Agret, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1It's completely unrelated, and spam but i've dugg you up since anything's better than this crap article!
    • Agret, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Just finished reading it and damn that was interesting. I enjoyed that, one of the best reads in awhile.
    • biohzrd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Very well written article. Thanks for that link!
    • ripter, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3That was a great article!
    • brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Starbucks is a business, and of course they will market and advertise for profit - they arent a social program for christs sakes.
    • timf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I think this was the best article I read in the last days.
    • jambarama, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is so pervasive we don't even recognize it. Adobe paid engineers to cripple Photoshop, and sell it at a lower price. It is called Adobe elements. Microsoft has done the same thing (remember Windows starter edition that could only run 3 apps at a time). The article points to IBM and Intel doing it too. Remeber the Canon Rebel? Someone figured out that it had all the abilities of the really high end cameras, they were just disabled. This person figured out how to enable them, and after a legal scuffle, the fix disappeared.

      Basically this is all around us - intentionally crippling products to sell more expensive versions. Shareware and trials basically fit this description (except the "starter" version is free). Disabling features on products is just price discrimination.
    • davidzet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well done Joel! I'm a econ PhD student, and he captures the nuances of pricing very well (including .. "oh well, this doesn't seem to be going anywhere...")
  • castlegrey, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7This story already made the rounds on the internet. Next.
  • junkmail02, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8sounds like the 3 partners that started starbucks were all short and are in denial
  • artificialhero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"It wouldn't work for a business lunch or a romantic meal, but it's just fine if I want to take my wife somewhere affordable." - ummm... right!
  • Phennim, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3"It's called the "short cappuccino", and it's smaller, cheaper and better than the smallest size on the menu, the "tall"."

    This doesn't make any sense to me.. maybe if short=tall, tall=short and smaller=bigger.
    • WhidbeyGeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Time to clear up the tall/small thing with SBUX. As a former barista in the Eugene and Portland markets and now as a member of the IT dept. at the corporate office in Seattle I know from where I speak.

      There was a time, up until the early 90's, that Starbucks had just three sizes.
      Short = 8oz
      Tall = 10oz
      Grande = 16oz

      There were the sizes and you could order them as small, medium and large if you wanted to.

      In the early 90's market research discovered that customers wanted a larger size than the Grande, hence the Venti (an Italian variant of the number 20, as in 20 oz) was born.

      Both my wife and I were working in the stores when that transition happened and as part of the shift the short size was removed from the menu board for lack of room. The cups were still in the store and customers could still order short, but "out of sight, out of mind" took over and fewer people were ordering the short size. As a result of that, the short stayed off the menu board. Some stores even stopped putting the shorts on their Service Paper orders, but I think that practice has stopped.

      Short still exists on the screens that the baristas use to punch in your order and you can certainly still order it; even if they have to give it to you in a tall cup.

  • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9From the article - "My favourite restaurant offers the usual great food much more cheaply if you eat at the bar, and put up with systematic abuse from the barman."

    That's because there is a lot of profit in selling alcohol. If you're eating at the bar, they can give you the food cheaper, because they are more than making up the cost in the overly expensive booze you buy.
    • icepick314, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8i've been to Chilli's, Applebees, ect...and never noticed any difference in the menu between at the bar and the table....

      why would a restaurant print two different type of menu?
    • jabberwonk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"and put up with systematic abuse from the barman."

      Maybe it's time to find a new bar.... Try Cheers - Woody never abused anyone.



    • JackHererUK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8This is in the UK, Alcohol is taxed heavily. There is very little money to be made selling alcohol, that's why most pubs/bars also doo food, becuase there is much less tax and therefore much grater margins.
    • Eyebee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I sometimes get a coffee in somewhere like Starbucks. However, I make my own coffee in the morning at home, and take another mug with me for the commute. I can't help but do the math, and if you buy a $3 coffee every workday that's around $750 a year....
    • jhodapp, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1@JackHererUK

      That's why I'm glad that I live in the U.S., where taxes aren't completely out of control. The UK government, in my opinion (and the U.S. government for that matter) needs to learn to stay out of the big business of controlling people's lives. Let people live freely, buy freely, sell freely and be free. I believe it's time to rid the world of all taxes except for a fair sales tax (www.fairtax.org).
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"There is very little money to be made selling alcohol, that's why most pubs/bars also doo food"

      That's funny, cause it's the other way around where I live. Bars sell food to get people to come in and eat, in the hopes they will buy high profit drinks.
    • Reziarfg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@Eyebee: I don't drink coffee, and if you do the math, that's $0 a year :)
  • Trat, on 10/12/2007, -18/+3SB is only big cause all other coffee in Amerika taste like *****!
    • MonolithTMA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2In Ohio, we have lots of coffee shops that have no Starbucks association and they have great coffee.
    • carve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When I moved to Ohio in 2000, they were just getting in on the whole coffee shop craze. They put a local shop in at the mall, and being a Washingtonian, I checked it out. It was the most disgusting, bitter, coffee-esque swill I'd ever had, and it was expensive, and people were lined up out the door to get it because they thought it was cool.
    • BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There are really good small coffeeshops in Seattle, Similarly for Vancouver (not in america, but it's in america-lite, so i'll count it) and it's subburbs.

      In fact, in Van, Starbucks isn't even the biggest chain. Blenz has better coffee & is easier to find than a SB location depending on which street you're on
  • tuna1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26I just never bought into the idea of paying $5 for coffee.
    • MonolithTMA, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Actually, if you stick with just coffee, the venti is $1.80 or so here in Ohio. I've never been into all the fancier coffee drinks.
  • aquamato, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Has anyone actually ever ordered the short cappuccino?
    • anewname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11It doesn't have to be a cappuccino... It can just be a short coffee, which is even cheaper.

      I actually discovered this by asking them for a short one day to see what would happen. I didn't know it existed, but I figured that it was weird to call your smallest size a "tall."

      All this Starbucks trickery aside though, Tim Horton's is still your best bet for coffee if you're in Canada.
    • wistar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I have always ordered a triple shot short mocha. I like it at that size and strength. I didn't begin at Starbucks but at some small independent. When I went to Starbucks I natuarally oredered what I've always ordered and they complied. I had no idea it was a secret.
    • scotus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1do it all the time, tho i order a double short cappuccino, which is still kinda expensive.
    • adamchristopher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12This article is a joke. I just quit at Starbucks after two years of work and had seen this a couple times during my employment. The article tries to build it up as if Starbucks is cheating the customer out of the drink when in fact if you ask any employee all the sizes we will generally mention the short. To say that the company is "hiding" the size would be like saying that McDonald's is hiding their complimentary water cups from the customer 'cause those aren't on the menu either.

      A few other little annoyances I have with the article include;

      "It's cheaper than the other drinks on offer"
      That's because its practically HALF the sizer of the smallest drink.

      "better than the smallest size on the menu"
      There is no way they can determine that every customer would enjoy a short over any other size.
      There was a similar article that was published earlier than this one that implied it is impossible to properly make a venti cappuccino which is *****.

      "they have a little button on their cash tills to ring it up."
      no *****. its a product the company sells.

      just another article trying to stick it to "big bad Starbucks"

    • jesseroo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I have to agree with adam^^

      I work at one (a starbucks licensed out) and mostly the reason it's not on the board is because it's 8 ounces (really meager to americans used to drinking 12-24 ounces at one time)...and I don't see how anyone could be happy with a cappuccino that size being half foam...that's really not much drink at all.

      And I make the best cappuccinos ever and in reguards to the article talking about it being better, it's just wrong...
    • dorsvenabili, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Totally agree with Adam. The article is horribly written. Why precisely is a short better? Is it because they use different coffee? Have they taken some "feature" of the short out of the tall? They probably don't offer the short on the menu because for most people it's not enough coffee. Give me a break. This writer was clearly looking for some material way too hard. The parallels with the tech industry are particularly stretched.
    • BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Tim Horton's is still your best bet for coffee if you're in Canada."

      No, it's really not. Tim Hortons' coffee is the same swill you find at truck stops. It's terrible. The only reason anyone likes it is because it's served up with jingoism ("you don't drink TH? you must be a terrorist, or worse, an american...")
    • tbeseda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2at least we arent Canadian... :-)
    • davidzet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I suggest a macchiato (espresso with *some* foam). You pay less and get either: a decent drink or a regular cappuccino (from the employee who doesn't know what a macchiato is... :)
    • molochi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I always order a short americano.
  • icepick314, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8occasional frappuccino is nice....but mostly i drink my own at home...groceries carry some really nice roasts and much cheaper than beans sold at Starbucks...

    don't know why anyone would drink those mixed coffees everyday...those things run several hundred calories....

    • DoubtfulSalmon, on 10/12/2007, -18/+1"those things run several hundred calories"

      What's with the leaving half the words out of the sentence thing? Oh, I get it, you're american aren't you? "couple bucks", "said Thursday", "run several", "9/11"

      FFS, can you people speak without bastardising the language so badly that no-one knows what you're on about?
    • thegreat59, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3God it's a forum DoubtfulSalmon I really hate it when you holier than thou types ruin the fun. What are you anyway slang exists in every language don't think yours is any better. Anyways I thought the article was great a very interesting read. I don't usually drink starbucks I've only had it like 4 times if I remember correctly. I live in Germany and although there is one in the mall a couple minutes away I always prefer to drink coffee at the local houses.
    • PlaidPhantom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize (along with the rest of us) for offending your poor, delicate British ears. I suppose we just don't have such a trained collective ear for language. Us poor, uncouth Americans.

      Seriously, get off your high horse. British English can sound that bad to American ears at times as well. That's a common phrasing we use. What about "sentence thing"?
    • tbeseda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ Doubtful Salmon

      take care of your dental hygeine.. please.
    • missflibbles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Doubtful Salmon, bitch about his use of ellipses instead of periods. Bitch about his lack of capitalization. Stop bitching about getting across his idea in fewer words. Some of us Americans (and not just the uneducated ones) think you Brits use too many superfluous words and have completely incomprehensible slang.
  • edwardko, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Perfect example is XP Pro and Home. 99 out of 100 can't tell you why they need Pro over Home except "it's better" or "it's more secure." Is there REALLY a reason someone not on a Windows server network needs to buy pro? (Remote access aside, there are plenty of other solutions.)
    • tvc15, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Symmetric Multiprocessing. Sucks to be using 1 processor if you have 2.
    • dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4XP Home can't connect to a domain based network, at least without third party software. The more advanced control panels are not only not displayed, but if you run them manually are actually disabled, and when you look at all the differences between XP Pro (or even a free operating system) and XP Home, I don't understand why anyone who does more than create a myspace page and/or use office for the occasional document or spreadsheet would even consider paying good money for Home edition.
      (Also, for the record, Pro isn't more secure than home, if you consider the fact that it's the same OS, with a whole bunch of features turned off, but all the same security updates. In two otherwise identical systems, less features means less room for bugs/holes to hide, making it probably more secure, even if it's next to useless for anyone who knows what they are doing...)

      /rant
    • Eyebee, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Is there any real reason why someone wants to spend a fortune on a lame operating system like Windows when they could probably install a better, free, system like a linux distro, that's doesn't require a whole load of added bloatware to keep it secure?
    • biohzrd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@Eyebee: hmm, maybe if they don't want to dick around with a CLI, or have to go to google every two seconds to figure out why the hell their system says kernel panic!?
    • DoubtfulSalmon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2@biohzrd: Uh, pretty much every operating system on the planet has been updated multiple times since the 1983 version that you're obviously using.
  • beaverfever, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6This is news to anyone who commodotises everything in life (judge every product on price alone), and a yawner to those who see value in the intangible (the whole is greater than the sum of its parts).

    Does building a BMW really cost that much more than building a Chevy Cobalt? No, not really, but you're not just paying for the metal and steel when you buy a car, or a computer, or furniture. You're joining a club of sorts, and the extra cost is the price of admission.

    Quite frankly, if you don't see the point to paying $5 for a cup of coffee, Starbucks doesn't care and are more than happy if you don't visit their stores. Part of that $5 goes towards exclusivity for their customers. If suddenly tomorrow everyone were willing to pay $5 for a coffee, Starbucks would quickly raise its price to $10, to keep the riff-raff away. It is no different for any premium product.
    • anguijm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Your BMW and Chevy analogy is a tad skewed. IIRC, BMW hand builds (assembles) their cars (at least they used to) while Chevy has an assembly line at a factory manned with robots(robotted with robots?) pumping out 1000's of cars a day. So the extra cost of a Beemer is also in the cost to employ skilled labor.
      Like I said, at least they used to do it this way, if they don't anymore then you are right, you are paying for the club card.
    • anewname, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1With a BMW, Mercedes et. al (which aren't the bastion of quality and reliability they would have you believe, mind you) you are also paying for huge amounts of R&D which then get spread out along their entire product line, but are still reflected in the price in addition to the "join the club" fee.

      For instance, a CLK500 will have the same engine in it as an E500 or an S500... Millions in R&D and then re-use the engine.

      GM, on the other hand, seems to just pump out entire new product lines every season when they're not just buying cars directly from Toyota and re-badging them.
    • turbowombat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually, it's not so much the sheet metal and the glass that you're paying for, it's the complexity of the assembly process. This is another reason why the car companies love to sell you those big SUVs. Because they're based on truck frames -- which, as far as suspension, frame, and body panelization goes, are much easier to assemble -- they often require less than 50% of the assembly-line operations and thus half the assembly time of a comparable car. But since the consumer is willing to pay a premium to lord over the road in their Ford Exorbitant, the car companies clean up on SUVs. This, one might suggest, also goes a long way towards explaining why the big three are faring so poorly of late. If your profit margin on vehicles is inversely proportionate to their fuel efficiency, a sharp increase in gas prices, you're gonna have a problem when gas is nearly $4.00/gal in some places in this country. (And but so I am glad to have left Los Angeles when I did.)
    • agarc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1BMWs cost more because a lot of their components are designed "in house". It's a smaller company that builds BMW cars. GM, on the other hand, is a huge company with many different makes and models. GM is able to distribute parts, chassis components, etc. throughout many different models and their sub brands. Parts/chassis sharing = reduced manufacturing costs = cheaper cars.
  • howitt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+36Uh.... I used to work at Starbucks. (I'm not complaining... I slung drinks and still got full benefits, stock options, and all for working 20 hours a week! They do treat their employees pretty decently. ) Yes, THERE IS a short cap. But I don't see how the writer thinks its better than anything else on the menu. Granted a short and tall each have the same amount of espresso, but the short has considerably less milk. (Cappuccino is 1 shot of espresso, fill the cup with 1/2 milk and the other 1/2 foam. FOAM!) Yes, its not listed on the menu publicly, but it by no means is BETTER than its tall counterpart. (That's like taking IN-and-OUT Burger to task for having a secret menu.....) I have no doubt plenty of companies sabotage themselves for profit.... but the opening example makes no sense. Cheaper doesn't necessarily mean better. I also know the short size on drinks were phased out of the public eye because rarely anyone ordered them! In this Super Size world, customers asked for larger sizes and portions. The company obliged. Article is OK overall, but definately didn't do its full potential on research.
    • valloq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14I'm not any sort of coffee/cappuccino expert, but this January article from Slate seems to sum up the pros of the "short cappuccino" fairly well:

      "The problem with large cappuccinos is that it's impossible to make the fine-bubbled milk froth ("microfoam," in the lingo) in large quantities, no matter how skilled the barista. A 20-ounce cappuccino is an oxymoron. Having sampled the short cappuccino in a number of Starbucks across the world, I can confirm that it is a better drink than the buckets of warm milk—topped with a veneer of froth—that the coffee chain advertises on its menus."

      http://www.slate.com/id/2133754/
    • surfit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4A lot of people prefer to have smaller servings, and if it's cheaper to another equally small version then they'll take it.

      Bear in mind this is the UK where it isn't common to offer huge portions of food products and also, people who live within big cities are more likely to order smaller versions because they tend to be more bothered about their weight/appearance.
    • jesseroo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ valloq
      "
      "The problem with large cappuccinos is that it's impossible to make the fine-bubbled milk froth ("microfoam," in the lingo) in large quantities, no matter how skilled the barista. A 20-ounce cappuccino is an oxymoron. Having sampled the short cappuccino in a number of Starbucks across the world, I can confirm that it is a better drink than the buckets of warm milk—topped with a veneer of froth—that the coffee chain advertises on its menus."


      IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE to make the fine bubbles in large quantities (I do it often) the person who wrote the article is wrong. I guess he's just never had all that skilled of a barista.
    • howitt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The problem with large cappuccinos is that it's impossible to make the fine-bubbled milk froth ("microfoam," in the lingo) in large quantities, no matter how skilled the barista."

      I take GREAT exception to this. Having had worked in a Starbucks for 5 years (had to put myself through college ya know....and find an adult job afterwards), I have made exceptional "microfoam" and it can be done. The foam placed into a short cup is made from the EXACT same container used to make the foam in any other size. The slate.com writer is completely uninformed, and is bordering on outright lies.
      Regardless, in ANY food industry, "better" is pretty subjective. One man's delicacy may be another man's disgust. (Escargot? Foie Gois? The Philly Cheese Steak?) The root article still NEVER has any explaination why the short cap is better, assuming the reader should just believe them. Bloody Hell.
  • Paul_in_NC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9RE: Phennim's comment on cup nomenclature:

    To clear something up for those who don't live in the Starbucks universe, there are no "small", "medium" and "large" named cups. Instead there are "Tall" (small), "Grande" (medium) and "Venti" (large) named cups.
    There is a cup that is smaller than the "Tall" one, but they only refer to it as a "kids cup".
    I recall another cup that was smaller (brownish color) than the "kids cup" that was used to serve Chantico in. Since Chantico was discontinued I don't think those little brown Chantico cups are used anymore.

    One other thing to mention: This story from Slate.com "Solving the mystery of the elusive "short" cappuccino." http://www.slate.com/id/2133754/ from January 6, 2006 is quite a bit more informative than the BBC article at the top of this page.

    My 2 cents.

    • j3507, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Paul in NC is largely correct. I have sat next to people who are FURIOUS because they went up and ordered a MEDIUM coffee and the employee asked 'short, tall, or grande'? Sometimes I'll explain the 'short' makes four different sizes thus the S/M/L comparison does not work. When they call the employee 'stupid' I wrap it up by telling them this same 'conspiracy' and that they are the stupid one for not knowing.
      I used to LOVE a grande Mocha but for some time it gets me just TOO wired. Depending on my mood, I'll downgrade to the tall or short. The portion is more appropriate and doens't turn me into an ADD psychopath talking a million miles an hour.
    • gwinerreniwg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@ j3507: Please - I'm one of those militant types who thinks "Grande" "Tall" etc. are ridiculous marketing ploys. Do you really mean to tell me you can't determine what size cup of coffee I want if I say "Medium"? That argument is just asinine. And how pretentious and arrogant is it for a retailer to correct me after I say it? Others are jumping on this too: go to a Cold Stone Creamery, and they'll ask you if you want a "Like it", "Love it", or "Gotta Have It" size. Don't dare say "small". This is merely clever marketing taken too far.
    • natterca, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Ok, I used to think the grande, venti (my size - XL) were stupid too until someone pointed out these are Italian names for the sizes. Kinda makes sense since they're trying emulate a European coffee house.
    • Gatesophile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Grande means "large", Venti means "20". I took Italian last year. *shrug*
    • hoist0that0rag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yeah but i refuse to try and speak italian to someone when i don't speak and neither do they. it's just plain stupid.

      i will, however, drink the hell outta a medium mocha.
    • osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1gwinerreniwg - Agreed. The customer is always right. I love watching all the fatties and future fatties lining up at cold stone like it's cute to get fat by going out to get ice cream twice a week.
    • jesseroo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0the chantico cup is gone now that the chantico is (it had WAY too much fat and calories for the small cup of milk) the kid/short cup is just the same color as the regular cups except it's 8 ounces instead of the 12 ounces the tall is
  • sparc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Here is my beef about SB. The cups suck! And I hate waiting in a line behind a bunch of folk all buying the fancy drinks. SB needs to have an express (coffee only) line. And about those cups. SB cups are the only cups that have collapsed on me while in my car. What has happened (I finally figured out) is I get served the coffee with the cap on. So I have to take the cap off to add some cream. When I put the cap back on (a second time) it appears to not seal well. When I have tried to repair the leaky cap while driving the cap has slipped off and then..... ouch!

    sorry.. I just had to get it out of my system...
    • amcluesent, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4>And I hate waiting in a line...<

      Yep, that's the killer of all these fancy coffee houses - you always get behind a lamer asking what everything is then having a debate about what to choose. It's all the same anyway, right?
    • forth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Part of the reason that Starbucks coffee cups seem a little more flimsy than everything else is that they are made from 10% recycled material. I'm pretty sure that they are the first company to do so in the US, due to FDA regulations on recycled material.
    • anguijm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@amcluesent - You just referred to the average person in a SB as a "Lamer". Seriously, stop taking the laptop to the coffee shop. Nah, just kidding, I think it's funny.

      On a related note, I could give two ***** about the secret coffee at SB, I am all about the Venti white chocolate with two extra shots of espresso. Of course, I only go to SB like once a month or every other month maybe.
    • dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@forth: Recycled materials are no flimsier than new ones. A cup (which is probably almost entirely paper, with a light coating inside to make it waterproof) made from 100% recycled material would be indistinguishable to a cup made from 100% new materials, assuming the recycling was done by an even semi-competent company.
      If you want a reason the cups are flimsy, it's probably either they are made from less material (thinner), the design is worse (maybe the rim isn't reinforced well enough, or there are ridges that are not shaped properly or something), or as was said earlier, you have to remove the lid to add cream, and then put the lid back on, stressing the cup that isn't designed to be abused. Don't blame recycling. Recycling is good.
  • MrSunshine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Just recently, they dropped the "short" cup in our country and introduced the the "venti" (half a liter of unhealthy caffeine). Apparently to adapt to the other countries who already introduced the later.

    Nice trick to get more money.
    • dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Could I be so bold as to ask which country? (and if they have actually stopped using it, or just removed it from the menu)
  • flair1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Starbucks coffee hurts my stomach but the coffee from my locally owned coffee house is smooth and tastes 100x better. Also the local coffee shop roasts its own beans in the shop and provides free internet access. Support local businesses if you have the choice.
  • dubbin, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5This is utterly retarded! It's only cheaper because it's VERY SMALL! What the hell is better about that?

    And the cost per millilitre (ounce, whatever) of a small beverage is HIGHER than that of a venti drink!

    Lazy misleading journalism.
    • tvc15, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5They are counting the number of shots in the cup as the measure of goodness. The espresso is the expensive ingredient. Milk is just filler. So a short has one shot, tall has one shot. Short is cheaper => Short is better value. I believe Grande has two shots and Venti has three. I don't know how they come out in the analysis but I infer from the article the Grande is more expensive than 2 shorts. You can also add extra shots for a price and I suspect those aren't as good a value either since only big spenders might think to do that. But that's just speculation.
    • jesseroo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0No you can't buy two shorts the same price as a grande and the ounces are equal between the two so it is NOT a better deal at all
    • BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"cost per millilitre (ounce, whatever) of a small beverage is HIGHER than that of a venti drink!"

      And herin lies the problem at the core of American obesity. Yes, it's "cheaper" to get a bigger sizes as a cost per unit, in the same way it's "cheaper" to get a giant dispenser that they use for catering over cups of coffee, but you should really limit your portions & save your money regardless.

      Rather than thinking "it's cheaper to get a venti", really shouldn't the question be "really, how much coffee do I feel like, cost be damned"?
    • jesseroo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0cappuccinos aren't bad for you if you get nonfat milk so health is not an issue here unless you can't take the caffeine (in which case get decaf) 8 ounces is a very small amount for anyone that's why the cups are made to be used for kids drinks ( if you want a cheap drink get a kids hot cocoa, it should be $1)
  • pcod66, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5starbucks sucks ass, buy yourself a nespresso machine and enjoy some good coffee.
  • PhilH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This guy has a series all about economics starting on the BBC here in the UK. I watched it last night, and it was the most interesting thing I've seen in a long time. The main point was how to distinguish between price and value. The value how much it benefits you, whereas the price is how much you are willing to pay for those benefits.

    One example was the difference between first and eceonomy class train tickets. The economy one was something like £22, whereas the first class was nearer £279, 12x as much. He proposed to swap his ticket (economy) with a businessman who had not paid for his own ticket in first class. The main willingly gave up his £279 ticket for just £60. That is the value of the ticket to him. It's not unethical to charge more really, because if people weren't willing to pay it, then they couldn't charge that amount.

    The starbucks comparison was more about how they catch you out on the extras. They take advantage of those people who think they are worth the extra money by providing more expensive options. Ultimately, they still have to provide low-cost options for the more price-conscious customers. Price targeting is the name for it.

    I would highly recommend the series to anyone who lives in the UK. Next week's is all about how to get raises; I think.
    • Agret, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What's the series called and what channel/time? You ommitted this required information.
  • Kobayashi953, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Starbucks coffee is absolutely horrible anyway. I've tried many diferent varieties and I have yet to find anything enjoyable. I stick with the Mom & Pop cofee shops. You won't find any gay caramel frappaccino latte with candyass cinnamon dust, but you'll get a good cup-o-joe.
    • thegreat59, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Thank you so much for that laugh I about fell out of my chair.
  • Swampthing, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Yes, there is a much smoother, less bitter, and much better coffee than the coffee sold at Starbuck's counter. It's called DUNKIN DONUTS Coffee...
    • CoffeeGoddess, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Dunkin' Donuts coffee is as bad, if not worse, than Starbucks. Give me a small roasting company's offering any time over either.
    • BrK1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Coffee from DD tastes like watered-down ass. Plus it's near impossible at times to get it black. Yes, I said black. No, not black with 5 sugars. Black. B-L-A-C-K. No, "black" does not mean only a *bit* of cream, it means pour the brewed coffee into the cup and hand it directly to me. Don't ***** with it in between the pour and the hand-off.

      The fact that the entire staff at a typical DD only knows about 8 combined words of English does't help either. Especially when these words all relate to upselling dough-based products.

      People here in New England drink that Dunkin Donuts coffee all the time. I won't take it even for free.
    • molochi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1D&D coffee used to be pretty good. Now it tastes like IHOP and WaffleHouse swill.
  • essdub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This isn't news by any means. The short cappuccino has been around for awhile, and has been dugg before. After reading about the short cap as a "Starbucks hack" on digg, I tried getting this at several Starbucks, and the short cap has been phased out at all locations I tried. Their response was, "we don't offer the short anymore, but I can make you a tall." Lady, you can make anyone a tall.
  • lazlonger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I first heard this story almost as written on Slate as one of their daily podcasts. I wonder which came first....
    IMHO Starbucks is only for use when you are out of reach of ANY local coffee shop, make that a double if you're in your own home town.
  • dbldwn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's called market segmentation.

    People derive varying levels of utility from the same or similar products, and are therefore willing to pay different prices.

    Suppose you have two customers that want to buy a cup of coffee from you. Person A is willing to pay $2, and Person B is willing to pay $5. You don't want to charge everyone $2, because you then forego the $3 additional dollars that Person B was willing to pay. You also don't want to charge everyone $5, because you then forego the $2 which was the maximum the Person A was willing to pay. You your maximum profit exists in selling to Person A at $2, and Person B at $5.

    It would be easy to just ask them to tell you how much they're willing to pay and charge accordingly, if only they were unable to speak to one another, and were completely honest about what a cup of your coffee is worth to them.

    Fortunately, you don't actually need to figure out exactly how much each person is willing to pay. You simply create different offerings of the same product with similar features. In the case of coffee, you could vary the size or perceived quality. From there, the each customer decides the rest on their own. In the case of this article, Starbucks is segmenting based on several factors: people willing to take the time to find the "bargain," people willing to order something cheaper off-menu, people willing to accept a smaller size. Typically, the people that fit that profile are more price-sensitive, and are only willing to pay a lower price.

    Companies do this all the time. Someone in this thread mentioned Windows XP Pro, and Home. That's a great example. Two versions of the same product, one with additional features that would most likely be used only by someone who is willing to pay more for the product.

    This is particularly common in pricing for software and other products with low marginal costs of production. Because the cost of creating the product is essentially the same whether you sell 10 copies, or a million copies, it makes the most sense to try to make every sale you can, even at very low prices. This is sometimes done by disabling some features.
  • sweetnjguy29, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The real hidden gem of Starbucks is the regular coffee. It is cheap, usually about $1.75 or so. Usually have a light, medium, or dark choice. Sometimes they will have a special coffee of the day too, that is brewed in a small batch. Othertimes, they will have a "rare"/"unusual" coffee such as a Rhwandan listed.

    Honestly, I think Starbucks coffee isn't that great. But it is hard to find locally owned coffee houses since a lot of them have been forced out of business or are too expensive.

    Often, with a little hunting, you can find a diner, cafe, news shop, etc, that brews quality coffee in small batches, really cheap.

    If your really unhappy with any of these options, you can buy an expresso machine. Or, get a coffee grinder and a drip filter and make it yourself. I make my own drip coffee at work with a mini drip filter and a coffee mug. 1000x better than Starbucks.
  • drgreenberg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0This is old news. I heard an NPR story on the very same topic a good 6 months ago. Just because it may be new to the BBC site doesn't mean it's new to the world.
  • mpap89, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3i work at starbucks, and this story is retarded. its like 15 cents cheaper to get less milk and less foam with the same amount of espresso in a short cup than it is in the tall cup.
    mpap
    off to work
  • Johnbinarystar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Auto makers do this with cars alot.
  • optimus008, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Starbucks coffee is so bitter.
    • BrK1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You would be bitter too if people insisted on making up fancy names to describe/hide your ordinary features.

      :)
  • nikkesen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2While I don't work for Starbucks, I do work for a coffee shop that has a wide-range of influence in Canada, I can say that it doesn't surprise me.

    These places are out to make a profit and they will make the smaller sizes of some of their products less appealing, (such as the small ice cappucino where I work - it hs rather watery compared to the medium and large sizes. The small and medium coffees are disproportionately tinier than the large and extra large...)
  • twitchr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4it's all about Peet's Coffee!!!
    • molochi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Abofugginlutely. I used to go to Peet's in Berkeley on Vine in the 80's. Now I web order it to my home in Duluth, Georgia.
  • iskanderbenamor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1When I go to Starbucks I'm not really looking to save money anyway... plus it sure is a hell of a lot better than the crap at Tim Hortons
  • democracysucks, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0If someone's stupid and trendy enough to eat at Starbucks...they probably deserve it.
    • howitt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm the farthest thing from a hardcore right-winger... but bash on a corporation with nothing to back your statement, beyond the "Its-hip-to-bash-big-corporations-because-their-evil-even -though-they-employ-plenty-of-young-people-and-provide-them-with-benefits-like-insurance-and-stock options-and-tutiton-reimbursement-and-vacation-pay-while-other-hourly-jobs-don't"

      ::sigh:: ...and your handle is "democracysucks"
      Moving on to an actual "conversation" in this thread. Burying this n00b.
  • jknevitt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"If someone's stupid and trendy enough to eat at Starbucks...they probably deserve it."

    Why? Because it's 'wrong' to be trendy? I think it's more of a trend to -hate- Starbucks. I can't count the number of times I've heard "Friends don't let friends drink Starbucks" from people who have no reason for saying that other than it's the 'in' thing.

    Who knows, maybe hating Starbucks haters because they're ignorant, wannabe "me-too" morons will be the 'in' thing, and then I can be trendy like everyone else.
    • iskanderbenamor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well said! Most Starbucks haters don't even know why they do. They just see a business and figure it's cool to hate on it because it generates profit. Lucky for the rest of us we have good coffee and a comfortable environment to ignore those haters in.
    • nikkesen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Not all haters of Starbucks hate it blindly. I dislike Starbucks because I find the coffee way too strong and I don't much care for the prices on a regular cup of coffee when I can get just as good a cup at Timothy's for way less. That and the crowd it attacts is too snooty for my liking.
    • nikkesen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That and I much prefer Tim Hortens coffee... and not because I can have it for free..
  • TheAstronomer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0At the movie theater I worked at there was a size that was half of the normally gigantic "small." It was on our register, and we had the bags, but it was not on the menu. We were not allowed to offer it. When asked what the purpose was a manager explained that it is for the customer (usually the elderly) that throw a fit of the bloated size scheme. That's business.
    • agarc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I find it helpful to ask for the "kid's size"... It usually reveals the "secret", lower-cost option. It works in movie theatres, ice cream shops, cafes, etc.
  • friend18, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I've only bought starbucks coffee once and I've been in the store a bunch of times. The menu is too confusing. I don't know what anything is.
    • agarc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Then I guess you'll never know... Why not try asking about the menu?
  • tablatronix, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3yeah yeah we all know abou the damn short cappucino.
    woopy friggen doo. Its made from magical beans and is much different than the rest of the drinks. Lame ass *****.

    Im a dumb consumer cause i buy triple shot venti white mochas.

    I know, i know, i should be buying 3 short cappucinos instead.

    how stupid of me.

    Buried.
  • mustanggt1989, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Starbucks is just a Dairy Queen with coffee flavored Ice Cream. Most people I've talked to don't even like the taste of a regular cup coffee. Especially women. And call it Bucks. People get offended when you start referring their "luxo shop" with a backwater sounding name like Bucks.
  • falbq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Why so many digg articles about the short cappucino? I don't see any "Starbucks Hacks" or Salon or BBC articles about my favorite drink, the Redeye (a coffee of the day with a shot of expresso.) It doesn't appear on the menu and yet any Starbucks I go to knows what I am talking about when I order one. Is this corporate sabatoge or just an unpopular drink.
  • k8nmodha, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2starbucks coffee is gross... tastes burnt.
  • aceg1357, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1the left has found another target.
    1st was microsoft
    2nd was walmart
    now it is starbucks

    oh and lets not forget the golden arches

    what will be in vogue to hate next?
  • spect3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Starbucks is great coffee.... what else can you argue? Their bold Yukon is great. Espresso? Pretty darned flavorful.

    Starbucks really just filled a demand. WE the people asked for it. NO one forced "starbucks" into our lives.

    You aren't being forced to drink their coffee you know.

    Starbucks promotes various local artists, the arts & fair trade practices.

    What else do you want from a corporate giant? Free coffee?? :P
    • agarc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I know a lot of people who complain about the flavor of Starbucks coffees. It's true that Starbucks uses darker roasts that have a more bold and strong flavor. You can taste this in all of their coffee drinks.

      If you don't like the taste of Starbucks, try their other variant, Seattle's Best. Seattle's Best offers up the same style menu items, but their coffee/espresso is much lighter in flavor. I actually prefer the plain espresso of Seattle's Best over SBUX.

      There are a lot of comments here that bash the company based on issues of taste. There's always another coffee shop around the corner, and nobody is being forced to go to SBUX.
  • spect3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2^ you to drink their coffee :P.

    They support the arts, local music and various charities and I've heard they are great employers.

    What else do you want?
  • justinwalden, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ok, Starbucks coffee is expensive. We've settled this.

    Is it anything new to somebody that all products carry a large premium?

    This is how capitalism works. You find the price at which the amount people will pay multiplied by the number of people is the greatest profit.

    For instance, Coca-Cola probably doesn't take 10 cents to make. They sell it at a dollar or whatever because they have determined that is the greatest profit point. If they can additionally sell it rebranded at a no-name brand at 50 cents then they can make even more money.

    I thought this was obvious and in the long run it makes all products cheaper across the board. There is no point in Coca-Cola in this hypothetical situation to create a cheaper version as long as they can keep making a profit from selling the no-name at a profit. If this did not occur the R&D put into producing 2 separate types of Coke would drive the prices up.

    This occurs in bottle water, clothing (A&F and Hollister are ran by the same company, and I can tell no difference whatsoever between the fabric, it is probably the same with the exception of prices), cars, and pretty much everything.

    So everybody stop whining and then realize that this also means you can get the same products for a lot cheaper. As long as the masses don't find out, you've hit huge savings.

    If somebody was truly screwing you, eventually another company would come in and take all the business. Nobody can run a coffee house with all that advertising and money put into stores and still sell coffee for a buck (or they could but if they can make the same profit with less customers, they'd prefer higher prices for simplicity).
  • imerik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0bleh, coffee bean is more expensive. better coffee though (and i work at starbucks :P)
    and seriously. in theory a short cap is better then a tall cap... if you're the .5% of people who even likes a shot of espresso with a lil milk and some foam. i see someone order a tall cap maybe about once a week. everyone is getting fraps or drip coffee anyway.

    and wow, you just saved yourself what 20 cents getting a 'secret cap' which is still less to drink and is only 'better' by personal preference.

    not saying that a lot of the stuff isn't a rip off. 1.80 for 20oz of coffee...
  • imerik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1all the other chain coffee shops (coffee bean, petes, gloria jeans) charge roughly the same price as starbucks. and there are tons of customers who drop 200-1000$ on an espresso machine and still end up at starbucks everyday because its more convenient and i probably make their drink better than they do :P

    don't hate the company, hate the addicts ;)
  • lordsandwich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm lactose intolerant and Starbucks is pretty much the only chain that serves soymilk. End of story.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.