Re: Starbucks threaten Cameron : Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:34 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Of the three big chains (which, generally, I avoid), I'd put Nero first, Costa second and Starbucks nowhere.

But, anyway, what economic difference would it make to the UK if Starbucks didn't open any more shops here or (even better) pulled out?
Feckall difference IMHO.

TBH I don't mind Costa.
Starbucks however is so foul it isn't funny.
I'm sure they add a tea-spoon of Yak urine to every cup on the sly.

Re: Starbucks threaten Cameron : Tue Jan 29, 2013 12:18 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

As someone else said, if the demand is there, Starbuck's staff would find jobs with the current competition ... and the demand (apparently) IS there.
As for suppliers, I believe the largest of Starbuck's suppliers is Starbucks.

Do you really think GDP would suffer if Starbuck's ceased to be?
Would people stop having a sandwich or a cup of coffee ?

Exactly there is no shortage of suppliers and it is relatively cheap for a new entrant to come in to the market. You don't have to invest in expensive technology to make coffee or sandwiches.

The real expense is that you need to have the money to pay the rent for prime location stores, however any large firm could do this even if they were in a different sector, it is not a difficult thing to open up an offshoot coffee business. And if there was genuine unmet demand by consumers for coffee, that was not being met due to the departure of Starbucks, then firms would recognise this as a profitable venture and so someone would do it.

Even the argument that they pay X amount of tax (not that they pay much) which will 'disappear' is not true. If consumers don't spend on Starbucks they will spend on other things in the economy which will lead to paying VAT on other things, giving profits to other firms that mean they will pay the tax. The only way that tax would disappear is if consumers decided that as Starbucks have gone, they would all put the money they usually spend in Starbucks, into savings accounts and not spend it!

Starbucks can't hold the government over a barrel about leaving the UK. They would have a strong argument if they were bringing a new and innovative product that had high barriers to entry so nobody could easily replace them, and had strong exports abroad so their departure would lower UK GDP and increase whichever country they relocated to's GDP through exports.

Re: Starbucks threaten Cameron : Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:41 am  

The thought that a company who basically makes people a brew feels absolutely entitled to private tete-a-tetes with government, and apparently regularly gets them, makes me sicker than a Starbucks milky lukewarm coffee. Fook them. The receptionist for the minister's assistant's secretary should have told them nobody would be available until a few million in tax had crossed the letterbox.

Re: Starbucks threaten Cameron : Tue Jan 29, 2013 5:00 am  

It does make you wonder just how a town like Totnes in South Devon can manage to not only survive but actually thrive these days. Apart from seeing off the threat of Costa, they have previous by also refusing to allow major supermarkets to open out of town developments. A town of 7,500 inhabitants manages to support 42 independent outets that sell coffee, albeit with the help of a major influx of tourists. The only major supermarket in the town is Morrisons and their store is very close to the town centre. So close, that Morrisons fuel station is on a completely separate site. If Totnes can do it, there's nothig to stop other towns and cities across the country, although that might become more difficult if the proposed planning changes come into law

It does make you wonder just how a town like Totnes in South Devon can manage to not only survive but actually thrive these days. Apart from seeing off the threat of Costa, they have previous by also refusing to allow major supermarkets to open out of town developments. A town of 7,500 inhabitants manages to support 42 independent outets that sell coffee, albeit with the help of a major influx of tourists. The only major supermarket in the town is Morrisons and their store is very close to the town centre. So close, that Morrisons fuel station is on a completely separate site. If Totnes can do it, there's nothig to stop other towns and cities across the country, although that might become more difficult if the proposed planning changes come into law

Re: Starbucks threaten Cameron : Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:42 am  

cod'ead wrote: ... If Totnes can do it, there's nothig to stop other towns and cities across the country, although that might become more difficult if the proposed planning changes come into law Remind me what all that guff about 'localism' actually means ...

cod'ead wrote: ... If Totnes can do it, there's nothig to stop other towns and cities across the country, although that might become more difficult if the proposed planning changes come into law Remind me what all that guff about 'localism' actually means ...

[Kosh]

Re: Starbucks threaten Cameron : Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:44 am  

Big Graeme wrote:

If the demand for good coffee is there someone else will fill the gap in the market.

If the demand is for good coffee then Starbucks don't qualify anyway.

Re: Starbucks threaten Cameron : Tue Jan 29, 2013 9:49 am  

Kosh wrote:

If the demand is for good coffee then Starbucks don't qualify anyway.

True. Isn't it all just brewed in a big Vat?

Re: Starbucks threaten Cameron : Tue Jan 29, 2013 12:34 pm  

I like my coffee strong and black - but drinkable.

Its been some time since I last supped in a Starbucks but along with the motorway Costa's that I've stopped at I find invariably that the "barista" (lol) tends to get thrown a little when you ask for a plain black coffee and what you get is something that is far too hot to drink for ten minutes (usually still at steam temperature when its handed to you) and very bitter, probably because its too hot.

I suspect that no-one else notices this because the cream, sugar and other bits of shoite that they decorate the other coffees with will hide this, but these chain shop coffees in their raw state are not good.



Just to put this right into context, I do enjoy a "proper" ground coffee, black, at the correct temperature, but instant coffee can also come close and the crazy thing is that its usually the cheaper brands that are best drunk black, currently I'm making my way thorugh a jar of Tesco's own brand and its very good.

One thing that I find makes a difference is obvious really, the cup size, when in Portugal last year I bought three cups and saucers of different sizes from a hotel supplier, the smallest being what you'd recognise as an espresso cup, the largest being about three times the capacity of that - those wide shallow portuguese cups make the best cup of coffee (even Tescos own brand) I've ever tasted - crazy but true, the cup makes a lot of difference, certainly more than serving scalding hot shoite in polystyrene anyway.

[Kosh]

Re: Starbucks threaten Cameron : Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:27 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

I like my coffee strong and black - but drinkable.

Its been some time since I last supped in a Starbucks but along with the motorway Costa's that I've stopped at I find invariably that the "barista" (lol) tends to get thrown a little when you ask for a plain black coffee and what you get is something that is far too hot to drink for ten minutes (usually still at steam temperature when its handed to you) and very bitter, probably because its too hot.

What you want to be asking for there is an Americano, squire. Basically a shot of espresso topped up with hot water. Tends to be what I drink, with just a splash of milk, when out on the road as all the other sundry confections are too heavy and/or calorific.

If I'm stuck with Starbucks as my only option I pretty much exclusively drink their bog-standard filter coffee as the stuff produced by their espresso machines is way too bitter, milk or no.

Re: Starbucks threaten Cameron : Tue Jan 29, 2013 5:11 pm  

I'm baffled as to how we were persuaded, as a nation, that paying the best part of a fiver for a paper cup of coffee-like liquid was not only ok, but somehow projected one into the realms of the cool, beautiful people; how did sitting in a generic, over-priced coffee shop become aspirational?

Is Friends to blame? Did we all believe that tapping away on our macbook in a crowded Starbucks would somehow transport us to the urbane cool of Central Perk, where we might enjoy some witty repartee with our own equivalent of Chandler Bing or Rachel?

If I want a cup of coffee whilst on my frequent travels, I open my flask and pour one out; if I want one whilst shopping, I seek out an independent coffee shop and pay less for a better brew. If everyone who objected to the tax tomfoolery of Starbucks actually used their consumer power to do something similar, rather than just posting something pithy on Twitter or Facebook they'd have fecked off years ago - making a difference requires more than hitting the 'Like' button or typing 140 characters on your iPhone.