Troy McNaughtonStarbuckers - the reason for this blog
April 2nd 2006 08:29
I was thinking about having a huge rant today but decided instead to do my homework, and sure enough, there are thousands of people who beat me to it. Their complaints aren't exactly the same as mine, but worth thinking about.
Take yesterday's article, 'Thoroughly Starbucked' for example. It poses the question, "Is Starbucks truly evil?" and seems to come out with ambiguity (which blows my mind). It deals with the economical and cultural side of things - globalisation and whatnot - although my favourite part was the comment at the bottom with the startling insight from "Stuart" that you could walk to a Starbucks in New York, York or Beijing and "You could shut your eyes in one and not been able to tell where in the world you were."
Knock me down with a feather. I think the only place in the world I could identify blindfolded is my bedroom, and that's just because it has such a special smell.
But to return from this orbit around cyber stupidity, Starbucks is evil for the following reasons:
1) They started the insidious, infectious, inaccurate rumour that a cappuccino is two thirds milk and one third foam, depriving us all of one third of the drink (just as icing is not the cake itself, so too is the foam merely decoration atop a good cappuccino).
2) They overcharge for basic human necessities* – it’s tantamount to profiteering in times of war. Alternatively if you don’t like that analogy I have another: they exploit people’s weaknesses like drug traffickers and tobacco companies… But that stuff’ll kill you so probably it should be overpriced. Who’s been vilifying coffee?
3) “Regular” strength coffee (cf. what is “normal” anyway?) is like drinking dirty dishwater with half a cup of milk in it, but an “extra shot” (like the other half of what you’d get elsewhere for no extra charge) brings out that bitter, burnt, biley taste that makes you remember the golden rule**.
4) They play Christmas carols in November and that makes them twice as bad as the schmucks who play them in December.
5) Despite prices that imply they have huge numbers staff who break their backs serving pampered customers, they don’t believe in cleaning the tables (apparently it’s not in anyone’s two line job description because they’re all just cogs in the corporate machine), not to mention taking orders from the table.
6) No matter how pigeon common your name is, they always write down something different.
7) They want private information like your name because they won’t even pretend they’ll recognise you in thirty seconds because the staff are brainwashed into mindless automatons.
8) Wait two years and their fancy schmancy furniture will be looking tattier than the old faithful down the street because it was cheap to begin with and franchisees don’t pay attention to the fittings, just the bottom line. Well the corporation probably has their private parts in the coffee grinder but someone’s gotta take the fall for this.
So think twice before you follow that friend into the hollow heathen of coffee houses. If they’re English, remember that they only drink tea and they really believe Starbucks is the coffee drinker’s choice. Forgive them their ignorance and remind them that their tea will be EXACTLY the same and about half the price at your average café, while your quality of life will be 100% improved.
They will bow to this logic or you really need to find some smarter friends.
* Frappuccinos are not basic human necessities. They are comfortably categorised as a dessert, and as it happens, I don’t mind paying $5 or $6 for dessert. This is the ONLY exception to the Starbucks boycott.
**NB: The golden rule is of course that if you’re going to opt for strong coffee, always try a single shot at your vendor of choice first. It could mean the difference between an average coffee with half the caffeine and an undrinkable monster with all the caffeine in the world locked away in a nausea-inducing cage. Do yourself a favour.
Starbucks can be found absolutely bloody everywhere in the most sacrilegious locations and saturated with that garish faux-stylish stigmata.
Take yesterday's article, 'Thoroughly Starbucked' for example. It poses the question, "Is Starbucks truly evil?" and seems to come out with ambiguity (which blows my mind). It deals with the economical and cultural side of things - globalisation and whatnot - although my favourite part was the comment at the bottom with the startling insight from "Stuart" that you could walk to a Starbucks in New York, York or Beijing and "You could shut your eyes in one and not been able to tell where in the world you were."
Knock me down with a feather. I think the only place in the world I could identify blindfolded is my bedroom, and that's just because it has such a special smell.
But to return from this orbit around cyber stupidity, Starbucks is evil for the following reasons:
1) They started the insidious, infectious, inaccurate rumour that a cappuccino is two thirds milk and one third foam, depriving us all of one third of the drink (just as icing is not the cake itself, so too is the foam merely decoration atop a good cappuccino).
2) They overcharge for basic human necessities* – it’s tantamount to profiteering in times of war. Alternatively if you don’t like that analogy I have another: they exploit people’s weaknesses like drug traffickers and tobacco companies… But that stuff’ll kill you so probably it should be overpriced. Who’s been vilifying coffee?
4) They play Christmas carols in November and that makes them twice as bad as the schmucks who play them in December.
5) Despite prices that imply they have huge numbers staff who break their backs serving pampered customers, they don’t believe in cleaning the tables (apparently it’s not in anyone’s two line job description because they’re all just cogs in the corporate machine), not to mention taking orders from the table.
6) No matter how pigeon common your name is, they always write down something different.
7) They want private information like your name because they won’t even pretend they’ll recognise you in thirty seconds because the staff are brainwashed into mindless automatons.
8) Wait two years and their fancy schmancy furniture will be looking tattier than the old faithful down the street because it was cheap to begin with and franchisees don’t pay attention to the fittings, just the bottom line. Well the corporation probably has their private parts in the coffee grinder but someone’s gotta take the fall for this.
So think twice before you follow that friend into the hollow heathen of coffee houses. If they’re English, remember that they only drink tea and they really believe Starbucks is the coffee drinker’s choice. Forgive them their ignorance and remind them that their tea will be EXACTLY the same and about half the price at your average café, while your quality of life will be 100% improved.
They will bow to this logic or you really need to find some smarter friends.
* Frappuccinos are not basic human necessities. They are comfortably categorised as a dessert, and as it happens, I don’t mind paying $5 or $6 for dessert. This is the ONLY exception to the Starbucks boycott.
**NB: The golden rule is of course that if you’re going to opt for strong coffee, always try a single shot at your vendor of choice first. It could mean the difference between an average coffee with half the caffeine and an undrinkable monster with all the caffeine in the world locked away in a nausea-inducing cage. Do yourself a favour.
Starbucks can be found absolutely bloody everywhere in the most sacrilegious locations and saturated with that garish faux-stylish stigmata.
| 74 |
| Vote |
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Although it always amazes me how many people rant about Starbucks - it shows how popular it really is, to be hated that much.
This article is a great rundown on how Starbucks wins customers. A large Starbucks coffee has more caffeine than a No-Doze....!
http://www.slate.com/id/2107807/
Comment by Lia
Incidently, on the health benefits of coffee.. a philosophy tutor once told me that a regular shot of caffeine reduces risk of brain/memory deterioration and diseases like Alzheimers. Could he be telling the truth?