February 8, 2005

starbucks

zzzzzz7654174.jpg

5 Responses to “starbucks”

  1. Barbara says:

    I don’t unders­tand how you can call the mega­brand Star­bucks “gene­ric.” Isn’t the defi­ni­tion of gene­ric not bran­ded, or has that chan­ged?
    On the one hand you say bran­ding is bad, but now gene­ric is bad, too? What am I mis­sing here?
    Star­bucks was first and had a dam­ned good idea. What would make them not gene­ric, in your mind? Honestly, I’d like to know.
    I get the expen­sive part.

  2. zenbodhi says:

    Gee, Barb, what is it like to work for SBUX?
    Do they really require wor­kers to bow toward what’s his name’s office three times a day?
    Hope­fully the cof­fee is bet­ter at HQ than in their sto­res. The cof­fee IS gene­ric or burnt — depen­ding on how much you know about cof­fee. At some point, ubi­quity won’t over­come medioc­rity in pro­duct.
    That can’t be right, can it? After all, there are too many exam­ples to the con­trary.
    Like Hugh’s run on about PCs vs. Macs, I do think the lady pro­test too much.

  3. Lanny says:

    Did you know that in Perth, Wes­tern Aus­tra­lia, Star­bucks doesn’t even EXIST?
    It’s like a fairy land, where cafes are not McDo­nalds’ style chains, and Bur­ger King is for some unk­nown rea­son called “Hungry Jacks”.
    I didn’t walk into a Star­bucks until I was 27 years old.
    Ha! How many of you can say that?