How many of us depend on coffee to get through the day? How many of us rely on the magical bean to survive?
Coffee is one of the world’s most traded commodities only second to petroleum, and there are approximately 100 million people that drink coffee daily in America [1]. But before we blindly take whatever is labeled as “coffee” thinking they’re all the same, what must we, as rightful consumers, know to make sure what we receive is equivalent to the full value of what we pay for?
Take Starbucks, the famous global enterprise and the biggest coffee company in the world. Currently there are 20,891 Starbucks stores in 62 countries and there are 13,279 stores United States alone. It is an understatement to simply label Starbucks as a success story. But despite the negative reputations of many such successful corporations in the United States, Starbucks is still seen in a positive light, as a global enterprise with humble roots and comparatively insignificant drawbacks. Is there more to this popular perception and if so, what is it about Starbucks that we, as customers and dependents of coffee, should be aware of?
My purpose in writing the following is to suggest a different kind of coffee, an alternative choice. Ultimately my argument here is that the lattes served by the lesser-known, esoteric coffee brands offer better value compared to that of the ‘invincible’ Starbucks. To this end, what can we do to compare qualities than using price as the measurement? For a clearer idea, let’s dissect with some numbers.
What’s In A Latte?
I. Coffee Beans/Espresso Shots
Starbucks sells a pound of their espresso beans for $12.95 while Blue Bottle Coffee, the prime brand example representing coffee boutiques in this article, sells their espresso beans for $17. For a coffee company certainly lesser known than Starbucks and “only-known-to-those-who-know”, this is a notable price difference. What is it about Blue Bottle Coffee that allows them to charge up to five dollars more?
Surely there is the taste difference. Many claim that Starbucks burns their coffee beans, rather than roasting them properly to extract bolder and darker flavors. This allows Starbucks to use less coffee for their drinks. Junk beans are often burnt to hide the quality of the beans and many follow up their claims with the matter of taste. George Howell, a coffee veteran and founder of Cup of Excellence expressed his opinion in the New York Times stating, “the dark roast used by Starbucks does not deepen the flavor of coffee, but instead can destroy purported nuances of flavor"[2].
It’s not surprising to see customers ask for all sorts of syrup, whipped cream, and Frappuccino for their coffee orders, in an attempt to sweeten the questionably bitter flavor. Granted, part of this is due to individual taste preference but I think it’s notable that Blue Bottle, and other coffee boutiques dedicated to simply coffee bean flavors, do not provide hazelnut and caramel syrups for their orders. Can this be interpreted as their confidence? In any case, I think it’s reasonable to infer that this may be due to the fact that the bitter, burnt-like flavor precisely does not exist in the coffee served by these boutiques – they have no reason to hide behind artificial palatableness.
Starbucks too still offer simple lattes, a drink with nothing but espresso, milk, and foam, and continually sells what to many including myself, tastes like burnt beans. Hence I am moved to at the least inform you of my opinion that it is only natural Starbucks beans cost less than Blue Bottle’s.
II. Milk
Another important component of a latte is the milk. It’s not difficult to notice the kind of milk Starbucks uses because the brand differs by location and each store generally uses the cheapest milk locally available. In comparison, Blue Bottle and several other coffee-boutique stores like Intelligentsia and Four Barrel all use Clover Organic Whole Milk that costs up to $8 per gallon.
What I would also point out is not only the quality of the milk used according to price, but the quality of milk according to the drink itself, stressing the importance of its proportion in a coffee drink, especially in a latte. Foam, created by espresso machines, is one of the important ways to measure the quality of a latte. While Blue Bottle strives to create the perfect “rosetta”, the floral shape made with foam, Starbucks fails to cater to this minute detail in their lattes. I am not suggesting that a Starbucks latte is unsatisfying because there is no pretty picture of a flower floating in my cup, but because the “rosetta” represents so much more than a foamy flower. To create a rosetta, the barista must heat the milk to an exact temperature as well as use the exact proportions of espresso, milk and foam. When one receives a cup with too much milk and too little espresso, an experience known to many coffee-drinkers, the lack of quality and flavor in the latte is tragically apparent.
III. Espresso Machines
Yet the most startling number out of everything to me is the the espresso machine. As far as my knowledge goes, Starbucks uses the Saeco Sienna, a rather reputable machine but fully automatic leaving less room for the personal touch of the baristas. Each machine costs around $3,480 while the La Marzocco Linea, the semi-automatic espresso machine used by Blue Bottle and many other coffee boutiques, costs approximately $10,000. With almost a $6,500 difference, the rise in price and quality only makes sense.
What is also notable is the fact that Starbucks started out too, with the La Marzocco machines. As the business expanded, however, machines began to change to meet the needs of the corporation. Howard Shultz, the chairman of Starbucks, understands the consequences and the losses of meeting the needs of the masses; “For example, when we went to automatic espresso machines, we solved a major problem in terms of speed of service and efficiency. At the same time, we overlooked the fact that we would remove much of the romance and theatre that was in play with the use of the La Marzocca machines. This specific decision became even more damaging when the height of the machines, which are now in thousands of stores, blocked the visual sight line the customer previously had to watch the drink being made, and for the intimate experience with the barista[3].” The question I now want to raise is: what else is Starbucks willing to sacrifice for the sake of a corporate success?
III. The Final Price
To many, the five-dollar difference in espresso beans may seem insignificant; but when a pound of espresso beans can pull up to 64 espresso shots, there is definitely a noticeable difference in pricing. When a pound of espresso beans can produce up to approximately 32 cups of lattes, given that each cup is made with double shots of espresso, 32 cups of lattes can obviously sum up to a form of profit. Assuming that the price reflects the quality of the espresso beans, a lower price obviously implies lower quality. However, data reveals that in 2010, Starbucks sold nearly 3 billion cups of coffee, roughly estimating to 8,200,000 cups a day.
After noting these numbers, the final question is raised: How much is a latte? It seems only natural that Starbucks’ lattes should be cheaper, when every component of their lattes is significantly lacking in quality compared to Blue Bottle’s. Yet shockingly, both Starbucks and Blue Bottle sell their lattes for a similar price of three dollars- Starbucks: $3.10 for their Grande Lattes, and Blue Bottle, which only serves one size, for $3.75. (Now take the extra leap and think of Starbucks selling 8,200,000 cups and how much money that actually means)
It’s true that you can’t put a price on convenience, and that may be the beauty of Starbucks. But it’s also true that you can’t put a price on quality and that is the question we as customers have the right to discern. While Starbucks strives for convenience, marketing, and ultimately business, coffee boutique stores like Blue Bottle dedicate their lattes to taste, quality, and the experience, the culture of coffee-drinking. Coffee boutiques know expanding their stores to every street corner and over charging their coffee isn’t what coffee is about. I remember driving through Silverlake in Los Angeles and seeing the LAmill Coffee’s advertisement on the bus benches in front of its store. It read, “Not opening near you, or on every other block,” and this message is clear on what issues it’s addressing. There is a sort of purity, creativity, and essence that gets lost in these chains of stores, whether it is the pure “McDonalization” of processes, or the “Starbuckization” as described by George Ritzer the reputable sociologist[4].
"Starbuckization" focuses on creating a specific image that falsely promotes what Starbucks has to offer. Whether it be over-pricing their lattes or the veiling the quality of their beans, it’s up to us as customers to decide. After all, you can’t put a price on convenience and in our current society, life moves at a fast pace. It’s true that Starbucks has redefined the paradigm of coffee and shaped many of the coffee culture of our lives- but this specific paradigm is misleading and is measured by corporate perspectives rather than catering to the customers’ perspectives on quality.
When Starbucks announced their release of the $7 coffee, Jimmy Kimmel poked fun at what we, as customers, are inclined to believe and what we are unaware of. Experimenting with regular coffee and pouring the same exact coffee in two different cups, regular coffee-drinkers were naïve and oblivious. Not only does this exemplifies the power of marketing, but emphasizes the identity of Starbucks as it misleads the customers with their nifty ability to over-price and manipulate our notions of quality.
Ultimately- you’re paying three-dollars-and-something for a cup of coffee anyway, why not give the coffee boutiques a shot, no pun intended. I can assure you, there is a difference; and whether that difference would be pleasing or not so much, it’s up to you and your taste buds to figure it out. For me, I would trust my daily dose of caffeine to a cup of coffee that receives the attention and care it deserves- rather than give it up to the everyday convenience of a busy life. After all, there’s always time for coffee.
[1] http://www.statisticbrain.com/coffee-drinking-statistics/; http://www.globalexchange.org/fairtrade/coffee/faq
[2] Schwaner-Albright, Oliver. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/dining/26starbucks.html?_r=1&
[3] http://starbucksgossip.typepad.com/_/2007/02/starbucks_chair_2.html
[4] http://thesociallens.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/mcdonaldization-and-starbuckization/