Thoughts

So, where I work is a downtown location with plenty of young professionals about.  Every day, I go to one of three places for lunch (really, one of two) and I sit and I read a book for a while, have a sandwich, perhaps some soup, whatever.  I’ve noticed lately that no matter where I go, I see principally guys.  That doesn’t make sense!  There’s certainly plenty of women in the workforce, and even if there wasn’t, the town/city has plenty of women living there.  So why is it that I see every table as all guys, mostly guys, etc?  What are women doing for lunch?  Are they just that more dedicated that while us guys go jerk around during lunch, they sit at their desks hunched over a computer screen?  I don’t think so.

So, following on my rant about Starbucks imperfections, I’m going to add another.  This isn’t actually Starbucks fault, but rather the fault of the suburbs, or at least this suburb.
   To begin, let me say that since I’ve moved back here, I’ve loved it.  Yes, there isn’t as much to do around as there was in Boston, but that’s OK by me.  But today I wanted to do something low key, so I decided to do something that I used to do a lot in Boston: go read a book at Starbucks.
 So I get in the car, I go to Starbucks, I get a mocha, and I sit with two books (I was finishing Children of Men by P.D. James and starting Brave New World by Aldous Huxley).  Yeah, I don’t stay long.
   I never thought I’d say this: teenagers in Boston were more respectful, less obnoxious, than full grown adults (the women especially) in this town.  I sit in one of the comfy chairs.  As I’m sure you’re aware, these always (in my experience) come in pairs around a small table.  I never mind if someone else sits at the other.  Heck, sometimes it can lead to good conversation - at worst, it’s never annoying.  This was annoying.
   Some woman sits down with her young child (4-5 range).  She doesn’t ask if she can take the seat, she just takes it.  As I said, I don’t mind if someone takes it, but at least have the courtesy to ask first.  No one ever says no, so what’s the harm?  It’s a good thing to do.  She doesn’t.  OK, fine.  Then her kid starts moving the table around with my coffee on it.  She apologizes, ok.  Then some other woman comes by, hits my foot, doesn’t say a word.  It just escalates from there.  I finally leave - it was ridiculous.  Maybe I need to move to New Haven or something, get back around college kids.  Never thought I’d say that.
   By the way, today definitely emphasized what that article was talking about yesterday inSalon.  Starbucks was jammed, and its atmosphere was horrid.  A coffee shop next door (or anywhere in this town, as far as I’m concerned - we have 1 Starbucks, 1 franchised Starbucks, and 1 independent that is more of a breakfast/lunch place than a place you can sit and do work or read in) would have done well.

I came across an article on Salon today titled “Don’t Fear Starbucks: Why Starbucks actually helps mom and pops coffeehouses.” A bit against conventional wisdom, I think we’d all agree, and I have little or no reason to criticize the article. I recommend reading it. I’d just like to add a bit to it.

The article states that there’s now 15,000 Starbucks locations worldwide. A staggering number. Further, they’re opening six new ones PER DAY. Here’s the problem, as I see it: they’re not very good. Criticize me if you like, but listen to me first. I’m sitting here drinking Starbucks as I read this, so I hope I’ve earned the right to at least give them a bit of advice, criticism, whatever you’d like to call it.

By “they’re not very good” I mean two things. First, I bring up their store opening numbers because while they are opening many new stores, many are small - possibly not even stores, but things like stands in the mall. Indeed, many of the new ones I see in Boston are crammed into tiny shop real estate that doesn’t really fit them. These lose the atmosphere that made Starbucks a nice place to go, whether to talk to your friends, read a book, or just listen to the music. These newer locations often feel cheaper, feel crammed, feel like they’re there just for the sake of being there. Just to make sure you can never forget Starbucks exists (yeah, like that’d be possible). Starbucks has lost a bit of my loyalty since they started doing this. Above all things, it was the atmosphere at Starbucks that drove me to spend many hours there.

Second, when I say they’re not very good, I actually do mean their coffee. Before you start saying “no one goes there for the coffee,” I’m using coffee in a general way to mean coffee, espresso, and any of their espresso based drinks. Now at some level it matters little. The average Starbucks drink (grande or venti) has 2 shots of espresso, and a ton of sugar and milk. Basically, you barely taste the espresso. That’s a good thing, because have you ever tried Starbucks espresso? It’s awful. It’s barely drinkable. I love espresso, but I must really need a caffeine hit to drink Starbucks. What on EARTH convinced Starbucks that going to automated machines was a good idea? I know the answer: Speed. But Starbucks built its reputation, at least in part, on quality. What happened?

Combine these two issues: mediocre newer locations (of course, not in all cases) with very middle of the road, to somewhat poor, quality. If, as the article states, Starbucks created a coffee nexus in a location, gets people drinking coffee more, gets people trying out the mom and pop next door more, some amount of those people are going to bail on Starbucks for a well designed, well run alternative. Starbucks has raised the amount of money people are willing to spend on coffee in this country, and that is most certainly a good thing, for the mom-and-pops. Now they just need to take advantage of it.