Guardian UK: Starbucks to go: The US coffee chain is closing 70% of its Australian stores - hooray!

[marmar]

Starbucks to go
The US coffee chain is closing 70% of its Australian stores. Is it because we're too sophisticated for them?


Brigid Delaney
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday July 30 2008



In 2001, the battle of the coffee machines came to Lygon Street in Melbourne. The old masters of the Mediterranean who brought their coffee-making skills to Melbourne as post-war migrants were facing a new enemy: Starbucks.

Lygon Street is sacred ground for caffeinistas: its boasts a large student population, a bloody history with a spate of gangland murders, and has the highest concentration of pasta and density of latte fumes per square kilometre. In short – it's unique. Not the place for cookie-cutter American chains, complained the old guard.

In an interview with ABC radio in 2001, local traders said they had gone to the Melbourne City council to get the Starbucks closed down.

Jean Carlo Justi of Universita Cafe told the ABC: "I think that people know Starbucks you know, they should think that they are a fish like out of water in a way because it's not in tune with our street … We are more cosmopolitan."

Yet Starbucks moved in – its shock and awe business model meaning that chains sprung up almost overnight in Australia's major cities, clustering in cafe strips and putting the frighteners on independent retailers.

However, over the years the Lygon Street Starbucks seemed a bit forlorn. One blogger posted in a Yahoo chatroom: "There is a Starbucks in Lygon Street in Carlton nestled amongst all the restaurants and cafes. Strangely enough, it is always empty when I walk past." Ouch!

....(snip)....

There are probably many complex reasons why Starbucks failed in Australia but one stands out – they just didn't know how to make good coffee – not like the old masters. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/30/australia.starbucks

[melody]

1. Yet more anti-American spiel

It's no more right than any other form of bigotry.

[Beregond2]

2. Agreed.

The idea that other coffee vendors need "protection" from Starbucks is laughable. If their product is as good or better, why are they threatened? I remember very well when Starbucks was a single, humble coffee house in Seattle. It grew to it's present size through a quality product and marketing savvy. How is that an evil thing? Yhey are also an excellent company to work for and have provided good jobs to thousands of young people, and promote from within.

I can understand the resistance to McDonalds, because their product is lousy and unhealthy. Although, in their defense, they are a huge supporter of liberal causes. But I can't understand the antagonism toward Starbucks.

As you say, it is just anti-American bias. It is particulsrly ironic coming from Ausralia, where it is almost a certainty that if you eat or drink anything there in a restaurant, you will get food poisoning. They could learn a thing or two from Starbucks.

[melody]

4. They seem to be missing that Starbucks is downsizing everywhere

Their cheering on the evil Americans' downfall is slightly out of context with reality.

[LeftyMom]

6. It's not anti-American to be anti-chain and pro-local business, or to notice that Starbucks coffee

tastes like a boiled sock. :shrug:

[melody]

9. The slant of this is clearly anti-American and not merely anti-corporate

They are praising the "masters" and dissing the "big company" (aka evil American) product. It's their
typical anti-US crap.

I don't like coffee at all ... it all tastes like boiled sock to me. But just because a business
is based in the US is not a valid reason to oppose it. What happens next -- we start throwing
Australian businesses out in retaliation? It's ludicrous.

Newman's Own and Ben and Jerry's are both big American businesses. Are they bad?

[LeftyMom]

11. Ben and Jerry's is owned by Unilever, which isn't American at all.

And by the standards of food companies, or even natural food companies (there's a great chart showing their interlinking ownerships by big corporations, I'm off to bed but I can dig it up in the morning) Newman's isn't big at all. But bigness itself isn't a problem- unhealthy, poor quality products and social irresponsibility are, and I would say those are the real differences between Starbucks and both many of it's local competitors and more responsible food companies like Newman's.

[melody]

13. There isn't a perfect company -- or person -- in the world.

I hadn't seen that Ben and Jerry's sold out -- that's sad but the way the world is. I think Newman's Own qualifies as "big". They may not be mega-corporate or multi-corporate but they're definitely not Mom and Pop.

What it comes down to is Australians may have whatever companies they like in their own country but when they start singling out one nationality it starts a very, very dangerous trend.

[LeftyMom]

15. As the article points out, the issue wasn't American-ness, but quality.

There are no shortage of American companies doing a good business in Australia. For example, Holden is a GM brand, and they do well because they sell good cars. (Better than the cars GM sells here, in most cases. But why GM is such a clusterfuck is another post.)

Starbucks failed in Australia because they sold coffee that is mediocre at best to people who already had access to, and a taste for, good coffee. They've had stores fail in the US for similar reasons- in one relatively well-known example their Harlem store failed because people preferred the cheaper, tastier coffee from the local Cuban place.

[melody]

17. Starbucks didn't fail in Australia -- Starbucks is downsizing everywhere

They were a victim of the usual cancer to trendy business -- rapid expansion.

And while the article points out it's not the American-ness, gosh, it sure seems to be the one element they keep
hammering home. They make cloak it in other garb, but it's the Yankeeness they clearly despise.

That said, I'm off to bed at a ridiculous hour. Thanks for the exchange and good night.

[CoffeeCat]

3. I love Starbucks...

...and I don't get people who don't like Starbucks.

Yes, they're a large corporation, but they do make an excellent product, and it's not terrible for you.

It's not like they make cluster bombs.

I enjoy my Starbucks. I buy the coffee beans and make it at home. It makes me happy.

Starbuck's is an American company that employs many people and they offer health insurance and great benefits.

We should be rallying around this company.

Interesting that other countries don't like it. What can we expect? Junior has turned our reputation into mud on a stick.
Everyone hates us and can we blame them? That won't change until the little cowboy is out.

Until then, let's support American businesses and support them.

[melody]

5. There are lots of international people who hated us before Junior

Back when Clinton was in office, I (quiet, bookish soul that I am) was called a nasty term for an American a number
of times in Europe. It's an old, old, essential hatred toward us that is just as much about European arrogance as
it is about American arrogance. There are as many reflexively anti-American people there as there are "freedom fries"
idiots here.

A lot of social scientists are very concerned our next truly big war may be with Europe. I think they may be right.

[malaise]

18. And nothing is wrong with your view but

has it dawned on you that Australians, like many people overseas, prefer to support their own businesses as well. I don't think this has anything to do with hate. Many people prefer their own local products.

[comtec]

7. Or maybe they're not sophisticated ENOUGH for Starbucks :)

I dunno, what drivel.
Starbucks buys fair trade coffee.
They treat their employees as human beings and give them TRAINING AND a decent wage.
They allow long-time employees a employment card that allows them to WORK AT ANY STARBUCKS IN THE WORLD!
That means if you are on vacation, and there is a starbucks, you can ask for HOURS TO WORK AND GET PAID ON VACATION!
THAT is a pretty good perk to me :)

oh well.

let them have their petty victory. If the local place was better, and to their taste, then all the more power to them!

Competition is supposed to be able the better Xyz winning. And if that's the case, then good on em!

It's the gloating like david took down Goliath that kinda of pisses me off.

[LeftyMom]

8. They sell almost no fair trade or organic coffee.

I don't know about other places, but here most of the locals deal almost exclusively in organic, fair trade, shade grown and other relatively responsible coffee choices, because those are what consumers want.

Starbucks, on the other hand, sells one variety of fair trade coffee, only in their drip coffee (where almost all of their sales are espresso drinks,) and only once a month in rotation with exploitative and irresponsible "conventional" varieties. According to the Organic Consumers Association, only 6% of Starbucks coffee sold is fair trade. None of their chocolate is.

As for their treatment of their workers, I suspect you're overstating the case. But even if you're not, it's important to remember that non-fair trade coffee comes from people working for slave wages, if they get paid at all- child slavery is common in some coffee producing regions. http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/393917.html

[melody]

10. Then that would be the case for ALL consumer coffee establishments

If the beans are sourced from slave countries. Let's face it, the coffee industry is not known for its conscientiousness. To pick on Starbucks alone is unfair.

[LeftyMom]

12. Starbucks is a HUGE buyer of coffee, and their buying pattern shapes the market.

For example, their move to more arabica beans is a huge driver of deforestation and loss of biodiversity in coffee growing regions in Africa.

If they actually start buying fair trade, shade grown, etc, or establish and enforce real labor standards, they can change the industry. Instead, the smaller outfits push for more responsibility and better quality, and Starbucks is the WalMart of coffee.

[melody]

14. And is that due to their nationality?

It's the American slant of the article I object to.

As I've said, I despise coffee. I despise brutal dictator companies even more. But the slant of the article was
anti-American not merely anti-global-corporate.

[Number23]

16. *snort*

:rofl:

We are more cosmopolitan.

(wiping away tears)

I live in Australia and there are lots of words I'd use to describe the average Aussie (friendly, forthright and genuine spring to mind) but cosmopolitan definitely AIN'T one of them.

:rofl:

[carlyhippy]

19. Starbucks went overboard, and the bubble has popped

They had to have a Starbucks on nearly every corner of every city in the world, eventually it was going to implode, they went in and made as much money in a short time as possible, now it's time to shut down.