Talk:Starbucks

This article is totaly inacurate

There are various contradictions in this article, as well as places where there are incorrect statistics. I could rpove halft this article wrong. This article gives the number of locations in 5 places with five numbers. All five are about 45,000 too low. This article could seriosly mislead people. It's things like this that make some people not trust the info on wikipedia. Tobyk777 21:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not point out these errors, and make an effort to fix them? It's things like this that make Wikipedia so interesting because information is so easily updatable if someone simply puts the effort into it. BMetts 01:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Menu

There is no mention of the actual menu of Starbucks in this article. I think this is a vital part of the article. Tobyk777 21:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure part of the reason for this is because the menu changes quite often with the addition and removal of drinks. Also, there are countless numbers of drink combinations, so to list every drink one could possibly order would be quite unfeasible. BMetts 01:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I think a little dictionary of all the wierd Starbucks words (eg- Tall, skinny, venti, etc). --Andrew Eisenberg 01:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

The introductory paragraph claims that there are 5,630 locations worldwide, but the 'company history' section cites 8,569 locations. Whether these figures refer to different dates or if someone simply made a factual error, I believe that the article needs to be improved.

There are other issues in the article that make it hard to read, including the redundant phrasing '**** of them in the 50 United States and Washington, DC and **** in other countries and U.S. territories.'

"Gourmet"?

Whilst I'm aware Starbucks call themselves `gourmet' coffee shops, this notion is laughable to many, particularly outside the U.S. (no offence intended!). Is is perhaps worth altering this to indicate that Starbucks call themselves this, but not passing comment on its accuracy? Andrewferrier 11:57, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

Yes, that was a ridiculous adjective, I've removed it. The thing about "intellectual discussions" is also absurd - I can only imagine that the writer was talking about Starbucks's reputation, so that's what I've changed it to. On the whole the article is surprisingly weak considering the strength of negative feeling against Starbucks in the States (or so I've heard). Isn't it accused of swallowing up a generation of privately owned coffee shops and replacing them with their own standard format? That was what made me look up this article. Palefire 11:40, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

There may be negative feelings, but there are plenty of people who buy their coffee and have made them successful here in the US. Plus, they have a well-cultivated reputation as a "caring" company. Not caring enough to allow a union, however... Gwimpey 05:13, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

The "negative feelings" against Starbucks are greatly over-rated. Otherwise the chain wouldn't be so successful. While they have no doubt "driven" any number of "Mom and Pop" independent coffee shops out of business, the fact is, before the advent of Starbucks, there weren't very many coffee shops in the United States. Certainly not on every block, in every airport concourse, and every grocery store, as is now the case. America used to be, for the most part, a vast wasteland of poor-to-mediocre coffee. Starbucks has undeniably played a major role in raising America's "coffee consciousness". Erik Neu Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I removed the "intellectual discussion" part. Coffee shops are generally known as a place for meaningful discourse, but not necessarily all of them.--Dejitarob 05:03, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... Which Peet's?

Entrepreneur Howard Schultz joined the company in 1982 and started the Il Giornale coffee bar chain in 1985, whose outlets were rebranded as Starbucks in 1987 when Il Giornale bought the existing Starbucks stores from the original owners, who held on to the Peet's chain that Starbucks had merged with a few years earlier.

Is this the same as Peet's Coffee, based in Berkeley, CA? The Peet's of Berkeley company history doesn't appear to mention this transaction. --NightMonkey 08:41, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is. See Starbucks case history for the convuluted details. --Calton 05:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the sentence is confusing. How about..

Entrepreneur Howard Schultz joined the company in 1982 and started the Il Giornale coffee bar chain in 1985, in his desire to recreate the Italian espresso bar. The original owners of Starbucks decided to sell the Seattle chain in 1987 to focus on selling beans and equipment through their Peet's Coffee chain in the San Francisco Bay Area. Schultz jumped at the chance to buy Starbucks and rebranded his Il Giornale stores.

No advertising in wikipedia

I don't think it needs to be specifically mentioned which telecom companies offer WI-FI in Starbucks. Anyone else agree?

--Sveden 02:25, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Starbucks in Greatland Targets

Seeing as it is mentioned that some Target Greatland have Starbucks, shouldn't it be mentioned that some of the Starbucks locations are in Targets? Possible as part of the rapid expansion section?

Starbucks enters contracts with various large corporations to license Starbucks locations inside theirs stores; that's why you sometimes see Starbucks in Barnes & Noble, Kroger, hotels, hospitals, airports, and more. Not saying their shouldn't be a mention about licensed stores, but it's not just Target. BMetts 18:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IHateStarbucks.com

I don't think we should keep this external link; it is poorly done, and is hardly "a part of a relevant and NPOV link collection". ✏ Sverdrup 00:44, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No indeed, it's just a chatroom. Still, we don't cover the notable anti-starbucks movement well (I added a bit, but there's probably lots more), and there has to be a decent, well-argued site criticizing the company somewhere. -- John Fader 01:12, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Website to represent distaste of Starbucks

www.revbilly.com is the site of a New York City based activist group, headed by actor and activist Bill Talen, that has an on-going anti-Starbucks campaign and carries a lot of information regarding that movement and that point of view. I am personally part of that group (a member of the choir) so feel a bit compromise about putting the site on wikipedia myself. However it is a good site to represent one aspect of what Starbucks means. What do others think?

To whoever wrote the above: there's now an article on Reverend Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping, with a link to the group's website. The article mentions Starbucks as one of their primary targets, and indeed, Rev. Billy is probably one of the highest-profile anti-Starbucks activists around these days. (There's not much detail in that article now, I need to find more references, but basically his group goes into Starbucks shops, among other places, and preaches an anti-corporate message to whoever's there until the police remove them; there's been at least one restraining order against them.) So maybe the Starbucks article should at least mention them. In fact, I think the subject of criticisms of the company is currently presented in a scattered and confusing way here; there's quite a bit about labor disputes, and then a misleading section called "Globalization" that lumps together complaints about all sorts of subjects, not just globalization. One of the leading criticisms of Starbucks' business practices is that they deliberately drive out local businesses by opening more stores in one area than are really profitable (e.g. three stores at one intersection in New York), and that's not mentioned here at all - though I want to make sure it's documented before I add it. ←Hob 04:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Dě1ocàt0r link

DreamGuy removed a link to a site which aims to provide searches for coffee shops that aren't Starbucks. I think he was right to do so, as the site in question clearly isn't a relevant link for Starbucks. Moreover, it seems its inclusion here was part of a Googlewhack attempt to bind its name with that of Starbucks (boingboing post). We should have an exlink or two for the anti-starbucks movement, but neither this nor ihatestarbucks is really informative. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 17:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heraldry

I was in the Lithuanian National Museum this last summer, in Vilnius, and was flabbergasted to see the Starbucks logo on clay tiles, right next to the Lithuanian Vytis and the Polish eagle. These were from the 15th/16th century, part of a large room furnace/heater that was dug up during renovations of the building next door. Anyone here aware of any on-line photos or sources for this bit of heraldry? I'm not sure of the connection, it may be a herald from Ruthenia or possibly Bavaria or Sweden ?? No, it was definitely not the Coat of Arms of Warsaw, which is a single-tailed mermaid. This was the original bare-chested, twin-tailed starbucks mermaid. linas 06:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hear Music

I recently discovered that Hear Music, according to their website, started as a mail-order company before it partnered with Starbucks. While it's a Starbucks brand now, does this mean it could be made into a separate (more complete) article? --Hersch 22:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starbucks Everywhere

I added the guy who has been going around the world trying to take pictures of every Starbucks. http://www.starbuckseverywhere.net/ Pretty interesting, I think. Plus it's a great resource for anyone who wants to see what Starbucks around the world look like.--Tyugar 02:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Advertising

I remember last year they used Eye of the Tiger about some guy named Glen. Now they're using a song about a guy named Hank. Could someone please tell me the name of the song they use on my Talk page? Thanks, Redwolf24 06:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More info?

Maybe we should add, with some restrictions, some examples of the more popular drinks (the difference between Latte and Cappuccino, for example). Also, a little more about how Starbucks work: the different working stations, the different "levels" of baristas (barista, shift, assistant manager, manager...).

I could add up more information, being a shift myself. how hard is it? and, if I do, can someone go over what I add? maybe someone with experience?

Retail?

Additionally, what about adding somethign about the retail aspect of Starbucks? From rebranded espresso machines to tumblers to "bearistas" this is a sizable chunk of the brand.

Whole-bean coffee

Also, we could have more information about the different beans offered (AMJ, Breakfast, Italian Roast, etc.)

I do think something like this would be helpful and relevent, but the problem is Starbucks has so many rare and seasonal offerings that it is hard to keep up with what we do and don't have. There is a page on the Starbucks web site (Our Coffees that has information about most of the coffees. BMetts 18:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd like to see here an explanation of "starbucks esperanto" (double halfcaf venti whatnot). Stuff about latte, cappuccino etc should be in the corresponding articles (or in some general coffee shop article). I'm not sure we need any more info about the "levels" etc. The reail and whole-bean stuff sounds interesting. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:18, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that something like this may be helpful, but I also feel like it is something that may be better off in its own article. I remember one time seeing an exhaustive website featuring information about all of Starbucks' drinks and how to order them, but I can't remember where it went. I am a barista myself, so I wouldn't mind helping on such an endeavor. BMetts 18:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Citation requested

This statement is pretty bold and should be backed up by some statistics: Starbucks pays its producers some of the highest rates per pound in the world.

Is there anyone out there who can validate this? If not, then I suggest it be removed.

Also, this statement is misleading because it implies that paying high rates to the producers will trickle down to the farmers who actually grow the beans. Is this true? I think it should be clarified.

--Andrew Eisenberg 19:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the line. If anyone can properly cite it, then please do so.

--Andrew Eisenberg 03:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Drive through

I heard somewhere (I don't remember where) that Starbucks was going to start putting up drive-throughs? Anyone know about this, and if it's true, add it to the article?

Starbucks has had drive-through stores for several years (I work in one). Just another tactic to make it easier for customers to get their fix, not something I really see as that noteworthy. BMetts 18:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: More Info

Further to Finlay McWalter's request; I was a former Store Coffee Master so perhaps I could offer some insight into coffee, espresso, the starbucks vocabulary, and more?

The Way I See It

Since there is a section about The Way I See It promotion, perhaps it would be acceptable to make a minor mention of cup #43 (Armstead Maupin's quote about being gay), and the outrage it drew from ultra-conversative groups? BMetts 18:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]