Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Starbucks: Trouble in Latte Land
Starbucks: Trouble in Latte Land
"The company responsible for the ubiquity of coffee shops finds itself
struggling with flagging growth, increased competition, and a declining
stock price..."
Business Week: http :// easyurl,net /4e9
"The company responsible for the ubiquity of coffee shops finds itself
struggling with flagging growth, increased competition, and a declining
stock price..."
Business Week: http :// easyurl,net /4e9
Re: Starbucks: Trouble in Latte Land
On Nov 17, 10:38 pm, SB
<fr...@spamexpire-200711.rodent,fr ell.theremailer,net > wrote:
> "The company responsible for the ubiquity of coffee shops finds itself
> struggling with flagging growth, increased competition, and a declining
> stock price..."
>
> Business Week: http :// easyurl,net /4e9
They are experiencing flagging growth because they are so big there
are few new markets to expand into. Not at all surprising for the
company that pretty much led the way to better coffee.
On Nov 17, 10:38 pm, SB
<fr...@spamexpire-200711.rodent,fr ell.theremailer,net > wrote:
> "The company responsible for the ubiquity of coffee shops finds itself
> struggling with flagging growth, increased competition, and a declining
> stock price..."
>
> Business Week: http :// easyurl,net /4e9
They are experiencing flagging growth because they are so big there
are few new markets to expand into. Not at all surprising for the
company that pretty much led the way to better coffee.
Re: Starbucks: Trouble in Latte Land
According to what I have read it was mainly MacDonalds' concentrated efforts
to cut into Starbucks market that was responsible for Starbucks' recent
financial woes. I know that MacDonalds and Dunkin Donuts have both decided
to go after Starbucks' clientel but I can't see how anyone buying coffee
from either MacDonalds or DD would ever give up being a Starbucks client.
But, then again, I never buy just coffee from Starbucks; it's usually an
espresso or cappuccino. I guess the majority of Starbucks' clients must be
"plain" coffee drinkers. Even considering that, I find MacDonalds "improved"
coffee to be barely drinkable and the new DD coffees to be swill. I choose
Starbucks only if I am on the road and can't brew my own coffee and would
only hit MacDonalds or DD if there was absolutely no alternative caffine
supply; I'd rather go to a 7/11.
"John S." <hjsjms@cs,com > wrote in message
news:1ffe7f07-e9b2-45a0-be1b-6810927b6c63@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups,com ...
> On Nov 17, 10:38 pm, SB
> <fr...@spamexpire-200711.rodent,fr ell.theremailer,net > wrote:
>> "The company responsible for the ubiquity of coffee shops finds itself
>> struggling with flagging growth, increased competition, and a declining
>> stock price..."
>>
>> Business Week: http :// easyurl,net /4e9
>
> They are experiencing flagging growth because they are so big there
> are few new markets to expand into. Not at all surprising for the
> company that pretty much led the way to better coffee.
According to what I have read it was mainly MacDonalds' concentrated efforts
to cut into Starbucks market that was responsible for Starbucks' recent
financial woes. I know that MacDonalds and Dunkin Donuts have both decided
to go after Starbucks' clientel but I can't see how anyone buying coffee
from either MacDonalds or DD would ever give up being a Starbucks client.
But, then again, I never buy just coffee from Starbucks; it's usually an
espresso or cappuccino. I guess the majority of Starbucks' clients must be
"plain" coffee drinkers. Even considering that, I find MacDonalds "improved"
coffee to be barely drinkable and the new DD coffees to be swill. I choose
Starbucks only if I am on the road and can't brew my own coffee and would
only hit MacDonalds or DD if there was absolutely no alternative caffine
supply; I'd rather go to a 7/11.
"John S." <hjsjms@cs,com > wrote in message
news:1ffe7f07-e9b2-45a0-be1b-6810927b6c63@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups,com ...
> On Nov 17, 10:38 pm, SB
> <fr...@spamexpire-200711.rodent,fr ell.theremailer,net > wrote:
>> "The company responsible for the ubiquity of coffee shops finds itself
>> struggling with flagging growth, increased competition, and a declining
>> stock price..."
>>
>> Business Week: http :// easyurl,net /4e9
>
> They are experiencing flagging growth because they are so big there
> are few new markets to expand into. Not at all surprising for the
> company that pretty much led the way to better coffee.
Re: Starbucks: Trouble in Latte Land
On Nov 22, 6:00 am, "hanknj1" <h...@hankgans,com > wrote:
> According to what I have read it was mainly MacDonalds' concentrated efforts
> to cut into Starbucks market that was responsible for Starbucks' recent
> financial woes. I know that MacDonalds and Dunkin Donuts have both decided
> to go after Starbucks' clientel but I can't see how anyone buying coffee
> from either MacDonalds or DD would ever give up being a Starbucks client.
> But, then again, I never buy just coffee from Starbucks; it's usually an
> espresso or cappuccino. I guess the majority of Starbucks' clients must be
> "plain" coffee drinkers. Even considering that, I find MacDonalds "improved"
> coffee to be barely drinkable and the new DD coffees to be swill. I choose
> Starbucks only if I am on the road and can't brew my own coffee and would
> only hit MacDonalds or DD if there was absolutely no alternative caffine
> supply; I'd rather go to a 7/11.
>
Recent recipient of the "1st Zine Award for Responsible Capitalism",
Chairman Starbucks Howard Schultz apparently celebrated with the new
acquisition of a $30M condo at 950 Fifth Ave., N.Y.C. -- replete in
Italian-Renaissance deco and across from Central Park nearby
Metropolitan Museum of Art -- with a decided upscale ambiance from
Brooklyn housing projects where he grew up. Although the company is
experiencing a 35% decline on shares since 2007, its largest ever
loss, prompting some analysts to project a shareholder takeover,
appearances aren't lacking. There is holiday help from the corporate
going out to needy families in Michigan, baskets of select coffees for
U.S. servicemen stationed overseas, as well as an upscale seasonal
goodwill advertising campaign, such an encounter with man and reindeer
on a ski lift to "pass the goodwill." There's also nationally
syndicated TeeVee, now no longer considered declasse and off bounds,
besides gala plans for a cross-cultural programme, Starbucks biggest,
of store openings across Britain in 2008. That should help offset
U.S. concerns. Starbucks really wants to become the Third-Place for
Americans. See, it's pretty simple: first, there's your work, second,
there's home, and third, well of course, there's Starbucks. We love
what we do. We don't want you for a customer. . ,com e be our special
friend.
On Nov 22, 6:00 am, "hanknj1" <h...@hankgans,com > wrote:
> According to what I have read it was mainly MacDonalds' concentrated efforts
> to cut into Starbucks market that was responsible for Starbucks' recent
> financial woes. I know that MacDonalds and Dunkin Donuts have both decided
> to go after Starbucks' clientel but I can't see how anyone buying coffee
> from either MacDonalds or DD would ever give up being a Starbucks client.
> But, then again, I never buy just coffee from Starbucks; it's usually an
> espresso or cappuccino. I guess the majority of Starbucks' clients must be
> "plain" coffee drinkers. Even considering that, I find MacDonalds "improved"
> coffee to be barely drinkable and the new DD coffees to be swill. I choose
> Starbucks only if I am on the road and can't brew my own coffee and would
> only hit MacDonalds or DD if there was absolutely no alternative caffine
> supply; I'd rather go to a 7/11.
>
Recent recipient of the "1st Zine Award for Responsible Capitalism",
Chairman Starbucks Howard Schultz apparently celebrated with the new
acquisition of a $30M condo at 950 Fifth Ave., N.Y.C. -- replete in
Italian-Renaissance deco and across from Central Park nearby
Metropolitan Museum of Art -- with a decided upscale ambiance from
Brooklyn housing projects where he grew up. Although the company is
experiencing a 35% decline on shares since 2007, its largest ever
loss, prompting some analysts to project a shareholder takeover,
appearances aren't lacking. There is holiday help from the corporate
going out to needy families in Michigan, baskets of select coffees for
U.S. servicemen stationed overseas, as well as an upscale seasonal
goodwill advertising campaign, such an encounter with man and reindeer
on a ski lift to "pass the goodwill." There's also nationally
syndicated TeeVee, now no longer considered declasse and off bounds,
besides gala plans for a cross-cultural programme, Starbucks biggest,
of store openings across Britain in 2008. That should help offset
U.S. concerns. Starbucks really wants to become the Third-Place for
Americans. See, it's pretty simple: first, there's your work, second,
there's home, and third, well of course, there's Starbucks. We love
what we do. We don't want you for a customer. . ,com e be our special
friend.
Re: Starbucks: Trouble in Latte Land
On Nov 22, 6:00 am, "hanknj1" <h...@hankgans,com > wrote:
> According to what I have read it was mainly MacDonalds' concentrated efforts
> to cut into Starbucks market that was responsible for Starbucks' recent
> financial woes.
Well, their woes are really a declining growth rate more than anything
else.
> I know that MacDonalds and Dunkin Donuts have both decided
> to go after Starbucks' clientel but I can't see how anyone buying coffee
> from either MacDonalds or DD would ever give up being a Starbucks client.
Actually it is thinking that one's are so much better that they are
above competing with riff-raff coffee purveyors like McDonalds and
Dunkin Donuts that will get Starbucks or the local espresso shop in
trouble quickly. Coffee is taken many times by impulse, and a
competitor moves in closer to where the customers are with a drink
that is a reasonable substitute then that's where the business will
go.
> But, then again, I never buy just coffee from Starbucks; it's usually an
> espresso or cappuccino. I guess the majority of Starbucks' clients must be
> "plain" coffee drinkers. Even considering that, I find MacDonalds "improved"
> coffee to be barely drinkable and the new DD coffees to be swill.
There are appparently a lot of people who think otherwise. And those
people are the ones who will make or break a coffee business,
especially the bigger guys.
> Starbucks only if I am on the road and can't brew my own coffee and would
> only hit MacDonalds or DD if there was absolutely no alternative caffine
> supply; I'd rather go to a 7/11.
>
> "John S." <hjs...@cs,com > wrote in message
>
> news:1ffe7f07-e9b2-45a0-be1b-6810927b6c63@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups,com ...
>
>
>
> > On Nov 17, 10:38 pm, SB
> > <fr...@spamexpire-200711.rodent,fr ell.theremailer,net > wrote:
> >> "The company responsible for the ubiquity of coffee shops finds itself
> >> struggling with flagging growth, increased competition, and a declining
> >> stock price..."
>
> >> Business Week: http :// easyurl,net /4e9
>
> > They are experiencing flagging growth because they are so big there
> > are few new markets to expand into. Not at all surprising for the
> > company that pretty much led the way to better coffee.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
On Nov 22, 6:00 am, "hanknj1" <h...@hankgans,com > wrote:
> According to what I have read it was mainly MacDonalds' concentrated efforts
> to cut into Starbucks market that was responsible for Starbucks' recent
> financial woes.
Well, their woes are really a declining growth rate more than anything
else.
> I know that MacDonalds and Dunkin Donuts have both decided
> to go after Starbucks' clientel but I can't see how anyone buying coffee
> from either MacDonalds or DD would ever give up being a Starbucks client.
Actually it is thinking that one's are so much better that they are
above competing with riff-raff coffee purveyors like McDonalds and
Dunkin Donuts that will get Starbucks or the local espresso shop in
trouble quickly. Coffee is taken many times by impulse, and a
competitor moves in closer to where the customers are with a drink
that is a reasonable substitute then that's where the business will
go.
> But, then again, I never buy just coffee from Starbucks; it's usually an
> espresso or cappuccino. I guess the majority of Starbucks' clients must be
> "plain" coffee drinkers. Even considering that, I find MacDonalds "improved"
> coffee to be barely drinkable and the new DD coffees to be swill.
There are appparently a lot of people who think otherwise. And those
people are the ones who will make or break a coffee business,
especially the bigger guys.
> Starbucks only if I am on the road and can't brew my own coffee and would
> only hit MacDonalds or DD if there was absolutely no alternative caffine
> supply; I'd rather go to a 7/11.
>
> "John S." <hjs...@cs,com > wrote in message
>
> news:1ffe7f07-e9b2-45a0-be1b-6810927b6c63@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups,com ...
>
>
>
> > On Nov 17, 10:38 pm, SB
> > <fr...@spamexpire-200711.rodent,fr ell.theremailer,net > wrote:
> >> "The company responsible for the ubiquity of coffee shops finds itself
> >> struggling with flagging growth, increased competition, and a declining
> >> stock price..."
>
> >> Business Week: http :// easyurl,net /4e9
>
> > They are experiencing flagging growth because they are so big there
> > are few new markets to expand into. Not at all surprising for the
> > company that pretty much led the way to better coffee.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Re: Starbucks: Trouble in Latte Land
'''Not at all surprising for the company that pretty much led the way to
better coffee.''' !!!!!!
Have you ever tasted BETTER COFFEE, or do you just think paying $5-7 for a
cup of coffee makes you better than a McD patron? *$ coffee is the worst
crap ever made.
"John S." <hjsjms@cs,com > wrote in message
news:1ffe7f07-e9b2-45a0-be1b-6810927b6c63@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups,com ...
> On Nov 17, 10:38 pm, SB
> <fr...@spamexpire-200711.rodent,fr ell.theremailer,net > wrote:
>> "The company responsible for the ubiquity of coffee shops finds itself
>> struggling with flagging growth, increased competition, and a declining
>> stock price..."
>>
>> Business Week: http :// easyurl,net /4e9
>
> They are experiencing flagging growth because they are so big there
> are few new markets to expand into. Not at all surprising for the
> company that pretty much led the way to better coffee.
'''Not at all surprising for the company that pretty much led the way to
better coffee.''' !!!!!!
Have you ever tasted BETTER COFFEE, or do you just think paying $5-7 for a
cup of coffee makes you better than a McD patron? *$ coffee is the worst
crap ever made.
"John S." <hjsjms@cs,com > wrote in message
news:1ffe7f07-e9b2-45a0-be1b-6810927b6c63@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups,com ...
> On Nov 17, 10:38 pm, SB
> <fr...@spamexpire-200711.rodent,fr ell.theremailer,net > wrote:
>> "The company responsible for the ubiquity of coffee shops finds itself
>> struggling with flagging growth, increased competition, and a declining
>> stock price..."
>>
>> Business Week: http :// easyurl,net /4e9
>
> They are experiencing flagging growth because they are so big there
> are few new markets to expand into. Not at all surprising for the
> company that pretty much led the way to better coffee.
Re: Starbucks: Trouble in Latte Land
On Jan 26, 10:27 am, "631grant" <tjwit...@bellsouth,net > wrote:
> '''Not at all surprising for the company that pretty much led the way to
> better coffee.''' !!!!!!
> Have you ever tasted BETTER COFFEE, or do you just think paying $5-7 for a
> cup of coffee makes you better than a McD patron? *$ coffee is the worst
> crap ever made.
>
> "John S." <hjs...@cs,com > wrote in message
>
> news:1ffe7f07-e9b2-45a0-be1b-6810927b6c63@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups,com ...
>
> > On Nov 17, 10:38 pm, SB
> > <fr...@spamexpire-200711.rodent,fr ell.theremailer,net > wrote:
> >> "The company responsible for the ubiquity of coffee shops finds itself
> >> struggling with flagging growth, increased competition, and a declining
> >> stock price..."
>
> >> Business Week: http :// easyurl,net /4e9
>
> > They are experiencing flagging growth because they are so big there
> > are few new markets to expand into. Not at all surprising for the
> > company that pretty much led the way to better coffee.
5 to 7 DOLLARS?? really!
No topic is MORE subject to vast exaggeration than Starbucks
LOL
LOL
dave
On Jan 26, 10:27 am, "631grant" <tjwit...@bellsouth,net > wrote:
> '''Not at all surprising for the company that pretty much led the way to
> better coffee.''' !!!!!!
> Have you ever tasted BETTER COFFEE, or do you just think paying $5-7 for a
> cup of coffee makes you better than a McD patron? *$ coffee is the worst
> crap ever made.
>
> "John S." <hjs...@cs,com > wrote in message
>
> news:1ffe7f07-e9b2-45a0-be1b-6810927b6c63@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups,com ...
>
> > On Nov 17, 10:38 pm, SB
> > <fr...@spamexpire-200711.rodent,fr ell.theremailer,net > wrote:
> >> "The company responsible for the ubiquity of coffee shops finds itself
> >> struggling with flagging growth, increased competition, and a declining
> >> stock price..."
>
> >> Business Week: http :// easyurl,net /4e9
>
> > They are experiencing flagging growth because they are so big there
> > are few new markets to expand into. Not at all surprising for the
> > company that pretty much led the way to better coffee.
5 to 7 DOLLARS?? really!
No topic is MORE subject to vast exaggeration than Starbucks
LOL
LOL
dave
Re: Starbucks: Trouble in Latte Land
It depends on how much stuff you put in to hide the taste of the awful
coffee...............
"lockjaw" <davebobbl@gmail,com > wrote in message
news:2c4e5b1d-216f-4474-9584-8ea3bfdb50f6@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups,com ...
> On Jan 26, 10:27 am, "631grant" <tjwit...@bellsouth,net > wrote:
>> '''Not at all surprising for the company that pretty much led the way to
>> better coffee.''' !!!!!!
>> Have you ever tasted BETTER COFFEE, or do you just think paying $5-7 for
>> a
>> cup of coffee makes you better than a McD patron? *$ coffee is the worst
>> crap ever made.
>>
>> "John S." <hjs...@cs,com > wrote in message
>>
>> news:1ffe7f07-e9b2-45a0-be1b-6810927b6c63@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups,com ...
>>
>> > On Nov 17, 10:38 pm, SB
>> > <fr...@spamexpire-200711.rodent,fr ell.theremailer,net > wrote:
>> >> "The company responsible for the ubiquity of coffee shops finds itself
>> >> struggling with flagging growth, increased competition, and a
>> >> declining
>> >> stock price..."
>>
>> >> Business Week: http :// easyurl,net /4e9
>>
>> > They are experiencing flagging growth because they are so big there
>> > are few new markets to expand into. Not at all surprising for the
>> > company that pretty much led the way to better coffee.
>
> 5 to 7 DOLLARS?? really!
>
> No topic is MORE subject to vast exaggeration than Starbucks
>
> LOL
> LOL
>
> dave
It depends on how much stuff you put in to hide the taste of the awful
coffee...............
"lockjaw" <davebobbl@gmail,com > wrote in message
news:2c4e5b1d-216f-4474-9584-8ea3bfdb50f6@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups,com ...
> On Jan 26, 10:27 am, "631grant" <tjwit...@bellsouth,net > wrote:
>> '''Not at all surprising for the company that pretty much led the way to
>> better coffee.''' !!!!!!
>> Have you ever tasted BETTER COFFEE, or do you just think paying $5-7 for
>> a
>> cup of coffee makes you better than a McD patron? *$ coffee is the worst
>> crap ever made.
>>
>> "John S." <hjs...@cs,com > wrote in message
>>
>> news:1ffe7f07-e9b2-45a0-be1b-6810927b6c63@d61g2000hsa.googlegroups,com ...
>>
>> > On Nov 17, 10:38 pm, SB
>> > <fr...@spamexpire-200711.rodent,fr ell.theremailer,net > wrote:
>> >> "The company responsible for the ubiquity of coffee shops finds itself
>> >> struggling with flagging growth, increased competition, and a
>> >> declining
>> >> stock price..."
>>
>> >> Business Week: http :// easyurl,net /4e9
>>
>> > They are experiencing flagging growth because they are so big there
>> > are few new markets to expand into. Not at all surprising for the
>> > company that pretty much led the way to better coffee.
>
> 5 to 7 DOLLARS?? really!
>
> No topic is MORE subject to vast exaggeration than Starbucks
>
> LOL
> LOL
>
> dave
Re: Starbucks: Trouble in Latte Land
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:06:05 -0500, "631grant"
<tjwitman@bellsouth,net > wrote:
>It depends on how much stuff you put in to hide the taste of the awful
>coffee...............
Come on, be fair. It is really not that bad. It is better than a lot
of coffee that I have gotten in some restaurants. Yes, it is costly,
too costly really, and probably not as good as some specialty coffee
shops, but I have worse.
Anthony
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:06:05 -0500, "631grant"
<tjwitman@bellsouth,net > wrote:
>It depends on how much stuff you put in to hide the taste of the awful
>coffee...............
Come on, be fair. It is really not that bad. It is better than a lot
of coffee that I have gotten in some restaurants. Yes, it is costly,
too costly really, and probably not as good as some specialty coffee
shops, but I have worse.
Anthony
Re: Starbucks: Trouble in Latte Land
Anthony Ferrante said:
> >It depends on how much stuff you put in to hide the taste of the awful
> >coffee...............
>
> Come on, be fair. It is really not that bad. It is better than a lot
> of coffee that I have gotten in some restaurants. Yes, it is costly,
> too costly really, and probably not as good as some specialty coffee
> shops, but I have worse.
Maybe he meant the Starbucks "experience" as a whole is awful. There's
good gestalt and bad gestalt, and then there's gestalt you don't put in
your coffee no matter what.
Anthony Ferrante said:
> >It depends on how much stuff you put in to hide the taste of the awful
> >coffee...............
>
> Come on, be fair. It is really not that bad. It is better than a lot
> of coffee that I have gotten in some restaurants. Yes, it is costly,
> too costly really, and probably not as good as some specialty coffee
> shops, but I have worse.
Maybe he meant the Starbucks "experience" as a whole is awful. There's
good gestalt and bad gestalt, and then there's gestalt you don't put in
your coffee no matter what.
Re: Starbucks: Trouble in Latte Land
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:08:55 -0500, Anthony Ferrante
<ferrante276-ngspam@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:06:05 -0500, "631grant"
> <tjwitman@bellsouth,net > wrote:
>
> >It depends on how much stuff you put in to hide the taste of the awful
> >coffee...............
>
> Come on, be fair. It is really not that bad. It is better than a lot
> of coffee that I have gotten in some restaurants. Yes, it is costly,
> too costly really, and probably not as good as some specialty coffee
> shops, but I have worse.
We all have different tastes, of course. But to my taste, yes, it *is*
that bad. I'll grant you that there may be places that are worse, but
to me Starbucks coffee is simply awful. It's not even a matter of
price or value. Even if it were free, I'd rather have no coffee than
Starbucks coffee.
--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:08:55 -0500, Anthony Ferrante
<ferrante276-ngspam@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:06:05 -0500, "631grant"
> <tjwitman@bellsouth,net > wrote:
>
> >It depends on how much stuff you put in to hide the taste of the awful
> >coffee...............
>
> Come on, be fair. It is really not that bad. It is better than a lot
> of coffee that I have gotten in some restaurants. Yes, it is costly,
> too costly really, and probably not as good as some specialty coffee
> shops, but I have worse.
We all have different tastes, of course. But to my taste, yes, it *is*
that bad. I'll grant you that there may be places that are worse, but
to me Starbucks coffee is simply awful. It's not even a matter of
price or value. Even if it were free, I'd rather have no coffee than
Starbucks coffee.
--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Re: Starbucks: Trouble in Latte Land
IMO if you want a thick syrupy milk drink, go to *$ and you will probably be
happy. If it is coffee/espresso you want go some place else... almost any
place else!
"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:lj5np39f02993r5kehpo1afu599n739l8n@4ax,com ...
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:08:55 -0500, Anthony Ferrante
> <ferrante276-ngspam@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:06:05 -0500, "631grant"
>> <tjwitman@bellsouth,net > wrote:
>>
>> >It depends on how much stuff you put in to hide the taste of the awful
>> >coffee...............
>>
>> Come on, be fair. It is really not that bad. It is better than a lot
>> of coffee that I have gotten in some restaurants. Yes, it is costly,
>> too costly really, and probably not as good as some specialty coffee
>> shops, but I have worse.
>
>
> We all have different tastes, of course. But to my taste, yes, it *is*
> that bad. I'll grant you that there may be places that are worse, but
> to me Starbucks coffee is simply awful. It's not even a matter of
> price or value. Even if it were free, I'd rather have no coffee than
> Starbucks coffee.
>
> --
> Ken Blake
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
IMO if you want a thick syrupy milk drink, go to *$ and you will probably be
happy. If it is coffee/espresso you want go some place else... almost any
place else!
"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:lj5np39f02993r5kehpo1afu599n739l8n@4ax,com ...
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:08:55 -0500, Anthony Ferrante
> <ferrante276-ngspam@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:06:05 -0500, "631grant"
>> <tjwitman@bellsouth,net > wrote:
>>
>> >It depends on how much stuff you put in to hide the taste of the awful
>> >coffee...............
>>
>> Come on, be fair. It is really not that bad. It is better than a lot
>> of coffee that I have gotten in some restaurants. Yes, it is costly,
>> too costly really, and probably not as good as some specialty coffee
>> shops, but I have worse.
>
>
> We all have different tastes, of course. But to my taste, yes, it *is*
> that bad. I'll grant you that there may be places that are worse, but
> to me Starbucks coffee is simply awful. It's not even a matter of
> price or value. Even if it were free, I'd rather have no coffee than
> Starbucks coffee.
>
> --
> Ken Blake
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Re: Starbucks: Trouble in Latte Land
Yes, I was referring to the coffee and not the brew with all sorts of stuff
mixed in. My 'problem' is that I always have preferred my coffee black with
nothing to adulterate it. Even my espresso has to be black with nothing
more than a possible twist of lemon rind. Therefore, Starbucks IS awful to
my taste. I'm not a professional taster but enjoy good black coffee.
"Johnbo" <johnbo@sonic,net > wrote in message
news:479ba15b$0$84230$742ec2ed@news.sonic,net ...
> IMO if you want a thick syrupy milk drink, go to *$ and you will probably
> be happy. If it is coffee/espresso you want go some place else... almost
> any place else!
>
>
> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:lj5np39f02993r5kehpo1afu599n739l8n@4ax,com ...
>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:08:55 -0500, Anthony Ferrante
>> <ferrante276-ngspam@yahoo,com > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:06:05 -0500, "631grant"
>>> <tjwitman@bellsouth,net > wrote:
>>>
>>> >It depends on how much stuff you put in to hide the taste of the awful
>>> >coffee...............
>>>
>>> Come on, be fair. It is really not that bad. It is better than a lot
>>> of coffee that I have gotten in some restaurants. Yes, it is costly,
>>> too costly really, and probably not as good as some specialty coffee
>>> shops, but I have worse.
>>
>>
>> We all have different tastes, of course. But to my taste, yes, it *is*
>> that bad. I'll grant you that there may be places that are worse, but
>> to me Starbucks coffee is simply awful. It's not even a matter of
>> price or value. Even if it were free, I'd rather have no coffee than
>> Starbucks coffee.
>>
>> --
>> Ken Blake
>> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>
>
Yes, I was referring to the coffee and not the brew with all sorts of stuff
mixed in. My 'problem' is that I always have preferred my coffee black with
nothing to adulterate it. Even my espresso has to be black with nothing
more than a possible twist of lemon rind. Therefore, Starbucks IS awful to
my taste. I'm not a professional taster but enjoy good black coffee.
"Johnbo" <johnbo@sonic,net > wrote in message
news:479ba15b$0$84230$742ec2ed@news.sonic,net ...
> IMO if you want a thick syrupy milk drink, go to *$ and you will probably
> be happy. If it is coffee/espresso you want go some place else... almost
> any place else!
>
>
> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:lj5np39f02993r5kehpo1afu599n739l8n@4ax,com ...
>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:08:55 -0500, Anthony Ferrante
>> <ferrante276-ngspam@yahoo,com > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:06:05 -0500, "631grant"
>>> <tjwitman@bellsouth,net > wrote:
>>>
>>> >It depends on how much stuff you put in to hide the taste of the awful
>>> >coffee...............
>>>
>>> Come on, be fair. It is really not that bad. It is better than a lot
>>> of coffee that I have gotten in some restaurants. Yes, it is costly,
>>> too costly really, and probably not as good as some specialty coffee
>>> shops, but I have worse.
>>
>>
>> We all have different tastes, of course. But to my taste, yes, it *is*
>> that bad. I'll grant you that there may be places that are worse, but
>> to me Starbucks coffee is simply awful. It's not even a matter of
>> price or value. Even if it were free, I'd rather have no coffee than
>> Starbucks coffee.
>>
>> --
>> Ken Blake
>> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
>
>
Re: Starbucks: Trouble in Latte Land
I agree right down to the twist of lemon rind!
"631grant" <tjwitman@bellsouth,net > wrote in message
news:LMPmj.49320$k27.689@bignews2.bellsouth,net ...
> Yes, I was referring to the coffee and not the brew with all sorts of
> stuff mixed in. My 'problem' is that I always have preferred my coffee
> black with nothing to adulterate it. Even my espresso has to be black
> with nothing more than a possible twist of lemon rind. Therefore,
> Starbucks IS awful to my taste. I'm not a professional taster but enjoy
> good black coffee.
>
I agree right down to the twist of lemon rind!
"631grant" <tjwitman@bellsouth,net > wrote in message
news:LMPmj.49320$k27.689@bignews2.bellsouth,net ...
> Yes, I was referring to the coffee and not the brew with all sorts of
> stuff mixed in. My 'problem' is that I always have preferred my coffee
> black with nothing to adulterate it. Even my espresso has to be black
> with nothing more than a possible twist of lemon rind. Therefore,
> Starbucks IS awful to my taste. I'm not a professional taster but enjoy
> good black coffee.
>
Re: Starbucks: Trouble in Latte Land
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:56:37 -0500, "631grant"
<tjwitman@bellsouth,net > wrote:
> Yes, I was referring to the coffee and not the brew with all sorts of stuff
> mixed in. My 'problem' is that I always have preferred my coffee black with
> nothing to adulterate it.
Same here.
> Even my espresso has to be black with nothing
> more than a possible twist of lemon rind.
By the way, despite how often you see lemon peel in American "Italian"
restaurants, I've never seen this *anywhere* in Italy (and I've
traveled there extensively over the last 20-25 years).
> Therefore, Starbucks IS awful to
> my taste. I'm not a professional taster but enjoy good black coffee.
If Starbucks is awful to your taste, you clearly have excellent taste.
> "Johnbo" <johnbo@sonic,net > wrote in message
> news:479ba15b$0$84230$742ec2ed@news.sonic,net ...
> > IMO if you want a thick syrupy milk drink, go to *$ and you will probably
> > be happy. If it is coffee/espresso you want go some place else... almost
> > any place else!
> >
> >
> > "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> > news:lj5np39f02993r5kehpo1afu599n739l8n@4ax,com ...
> >> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:08:55 -0500, Anthony Ferrante
> >> <ferrante276-ngspam@yahoo,com > wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:06:05 -0500, "631grant"
> >>> <tjwitman@bellsouth,net > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >It depends on how much stuff you put in to hide the taste of the awful
> >>> >coffee...............
> >>>
> >>> Come on, be fair. It is really not that bad. It is better than a lot
> >>> of coffee that I have gotten in some restaurants. Yes, it is costly,
> >>> too costly really, and probably not as good as some specialty coffee
> >>> shops, but I have worse.
> >>
> >>
> >> We all have different tastes, of course. But to my taste, yes, it *is*
> >> that bad. I'll grant you that there may be places that are worse, but
> >> to me Starbucks coffee is simply awful. It's not even a matter of
> >> price or value. Even if it were free, I'd rather have no coffee than
> >> Starbucks coffee.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ken Blake
> >> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
> >
> >
>
--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:56:37 -0500, "631grant"
<tjwitman@bellsouth,net > wrote:
> Yes, I was referring to the coffee and not the brew with all sorts of stuff
> mixed in. My 'problem' is that I always have preferred my coffee black with
> nothing to adulterate it.
Same here.
> Even my espresso has to be black with nothing
> more than a possible twist of lemon rind.
By the way, despite how often you see lemon peel in American "Italian"
restaurants, I've never seen this *anywhere* in Italy (and I've
traveled there extensively over the last 20-25 years).
> Therefore, Starbucks IS awful to
> my taste. I'm not a professional taster but enjoy good black coffee.
If Starbucks is awful to your taste, you clearly have excellent taste.
> "Johnbo" <johnbo@sonic,net > wrote in message
> news:479ba15b$0$84230$742ec2ed@news.sonic,net ...
> > IMO if you want a thick syrupy milk drink, go to *$ and you will probably
> > be happy. If it is coffee/espresso you want go some place else... almost
> > any place else!
> >
> >
> > "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> > news:lj5np39f02993r5kehpo1afu599n739l8n@4ax,com ...
> >> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:08:55 -0500, Anthony Ferrante
> >> <ferrante276-ngspam@yahoo,com > wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:06:05 -0500, "631grant"
> >>> <tjwitman@bellsouth,net > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >It depends on how much stuff you put in to hide the taste of the awful
> >>> >coffee...............
> >>>
> >>> Come on, be fair. It is really not that bad. It is better than a lot
> >>> of coffee that I have gotten in some restaurants. Yes, it is costly,
> >>> too costly really, and probably not as good as some specialty coffee
> >>> shops, but I have worse.
> >>
> >>
> >> We all have different tastes, of course. But to my taste, yes, it *is*
> >> that bad. I'll grant you that there may be places that are worse, but
> >> to me Starbucks coffee is simply awful. It's not even a matter of
> >> price or value. Even if it were free, I'd rather have no coffee than
> >> Starbucks coffee.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ken Blake
> >> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
> >
> >
>
--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
