I see what you’re saying, but I don’t think that naming their water “Ethos” necessarily implies a not-for-profit committment. I think what they are trying to do is imply that their water is more ethical than other bottled waters, and maybe that they run an ethical business in general, not that the sole purpose of selling the water is to raise money for thirsty children.
Exactly. Starbucks quite clearly is a for-profit business, its primary goal is to make money. On one of the products they sell, for profit just like the rest of the products they sell at their for-profit establishment, they will make a small donation to the kids and their water.
If their mission statement was primarily to raise money for clean water, then you might have a point. But their mission is to make money on coffee and beverages and pastries. Oh, and if you buy that bottle of water, they’ll donate a nickel.
I am really not seeing what is bad in any way here.
I want to question who thinks Starbucks even ought to be charging a $1.50 or $1.75 or whatever the hell they charge.
Frankly, Starbucks couldn’t make a decent cup of coffee if it hit them in the skull. Their coffee is an abomination unto man. It is made drinkable solely but adding immense amounts of gunk to cover the nasty, burned, dreary taste.
Additionally, while some of their pastry products are nice, the majority are dry, tasteless crap. Believe me, you are better off going to a place which serves 75 cent coffee and doughnuts. If you want to blow your money on double mocha cafe whip hazelnut shot expressor, then Starbucks away. I do like their speciality non-coffee drinks, like the hot chocolate and cider. Both are very good. But their actual coffee is horrible. Their tea blows. I’d rather have a cheap cup of Nestea than their “real tea”… which they hand you in a teabag. :rolleyes:
I remember wanting some fruit juice late at night. Since our university sold out to Starbucks, you can’t get anything (I had no cash, so no vending machine) late except at their riduclous prices. Some decent fruit juice set me back four dollars (and 15 cents). And I had to pay, because there was nothing else open and the university took out the free student drinks (including coffee and - my favorite - tea) so Starbucks could rack in the $$.
I’ll continue the hijack and second smilingbandit on the crappy pastries (because I dont drink coffee). It’s time for the horrible Snowmen cut-out cookies to rear their ugly heads. It’s like eating a hockey puck thats been laquered with bathtub enamel. Bad snowman! Bad!
And why did the Caramel Apple Cider need changed to Caramel Apple Spice? Is that not cider I’m drinking anymore? WTF is it then?!
I’d genuinely like to know where you can get an iced espresso drink for a buck and a half, because I’d like to give them my business.
Sorry- I don’t like plain hot coffee. Hate me, call me classless, whatever. I like espresso in all forms, though- particularly iced with a bit of chocolate, but that’s just me. And even then, my tall, iced, non fat (I’m allergic to whole milk, you see- I’m not some dirty yuppie) mocha is a whopping $2.75. If I liked regular coffee, I could spend a buck and a quarter and get some- I dont, though.
Yes, if you want a 24 ounce (Venti) blended mocha with chocolate chips, it will cost you almost 4 dollars. It also has 600 calories and 23 grams of fat.
Cook’s Illustrated did a taste test of coffee a while back.
The editor was somewhat chargined when his favorite (Bigbucks) came in something like 6th place when tasted black.
After adding milk*, it “opened” up the flavor of the Bigbucks coffee and it came in first.
So if you are a black coffee drinker you probably don’t like Bigbucks. If you add milk or creme, you may prefer it.
I would be one of the milk/cream adders. I realized a long time ago that I don’t really like coffee…I like cream and sugar. Coffee is just an effective, socially acceptable delivery system for them.
OP: “Starbucks is a bastard because their charity water is false advertising!”
Slypork: “Starbucks coffee sucks and everyone who drinks it is a goddamn money-wasting yuppie!”
Um, great! No one cares about your opinions on people who like Starbucks coffee. That’s not what this is about. Open up a new thread if you just want to bitch about yuppies and the coffee they buy. Asshole.
Meanwhile, in response to the OP, I think it’s awful that marketers these days can tap into some “global awareness” guilt that most people have festering behind their skulls, and likewise tap into the idiocy that people will feel good about themselves if WHAT THEY WOULD DO ANYWAY will ambiguously help someone in another country. Maybe it doesn’t count as charity if YOU WOULD DO IT ANYWAY? Maybe you don’t deserve to feel like you’re donating anything if it’s WHAT YOU WOULD DO ANYWAY?
How about making an effort to help people before you pat yourself on the back for being such a GLOBALLY-AWARE person?
Not that this is what the OP is doing, but I love how people like to claim how much they help the environment or hunger or whatever when it’s really only foolish susceptibility to marketing and not really any positive thought or action originating on their part whatsoever. This is the only reason that Starbucks can even get away with “Ethos” water.
How about this: why don’t we find out exactly how much money Starbucks has contributed through their campaign with the water? My searching skills are weak, but surely someone can do better than I can.
The fact is though, that whatever Starbucks gives- under whatever pretense they use- is vastly more than all of us combined. I guarantee my previous statement is true, unless Warren Buffet is posting here secretly or something.
So, why be up in arms about it? Giving is giving, regardless of the motivation. I suppose if you believe that the ends don’t justify the means, there wont be any changing your mind. But surely Starbucks has helped at least someone. I’ll believe different when there are numbers saying otherwise.
Oh, and as was previously mentioned: Starbucks will give you a HUGE thing of water for free if you just ask.
Starbucks acquired Ethos in (I think) 2005. Meaning that in five years the company plans to donate $10 million. Sure, I guess that is a drop in the Starbucks bucket, but it’s still a ton of money.
I’d just like to point out – if your wife didn’t – that not only did you get ass-raped for that water, but the water itself tastes like it was used to do the ass-raping. It is seriously nasty water.
Kids who, I’d like to point out, wouldn’t be thirsty if they had just listened to mom and had a glass of water before we started driving to grandma’s in the first place, dammit!
Starbucks is unionized, so I don’t mind going there when it’s the closest place around, even though their drip coffee definitely is not the best. (It’s better than 7-11. I’ve never tried Dunkin’ Donuts; I hear they’re trying to cut into Starbucks’ business by upgrading the quality.)
If I really need to go somewhere for a cup of coffee, and if there’s a local coffee house around, though, I’ll go there, because the coffee is generally better and about the same price.
Otherwise, most of the time I brew my own coffee at home in the morning and put it in a thermos which I take around. It saves money and allows me to have better coffee than the lousy office stuff.
While the mark-up Starbucks makes on drip coffee must be pretty large, most people don’t go to Starbucks for drip coffee. They make most of their money from the fancy hot liquid candy stuff. That, and coffee “paraphernalia.”
You might want to count again, Toots. At least three other people have also expressed opinions, pro or con, as to the quality of Starbuck’s coffee. OTOH, no one wants to hear the thread police bitch about other people discussing a tangentially-related side issue. It ain’t your thread, so stuff it.
True, but he also indirectly addressed the quality of the coffee, too.
Now, if someone wants to slam him for the rest of his post (which was idiotic, no question), I have no problem with that. Someone must have dropped a case of bottled water on his head when he was a kid–which explains at least two things, here.
The problem with Starbucks is not that you’re paying $3.50 for a cup of foamy coffee, it’s that you’re paying $3.50 for a cup of foamy coffee that takes very little skill to make, from a minimum-wage employee with little to no experience as a barista. Go to a decent local coffeehouse and you can spend the same $3.50 for a cup of foamy coffee prepared by an actual barista.
Oh, you’re having trouble finding a decent local coffeehouse where you can go and hang out for a few hours in Seattle? (And no, Starbucks doesn’t count as “local”, as it’s run by some asshat in an expensive suit who probably drives a Jaguar and would be rich no matter where he parked his corporate HQ, not by a small business owner who’s trying to offer something interesting and novel.)
Here, I’ll help you. I’ll even highlight the comments your fellow Seattlites made about the atmosphere at some nice local places:
You’re probably right, though, there aren’t too many places in Seattle where you can go and hang out for a few hours. Maybe I just got lucky that the first six places I found sounded like that.
Hostile Dialect, your post was missing several
[/quote]
tags which is why it showed up blank. I put them back where I thought they should go, let me know if they need to be moved.
Oi. First of all, starbucks employees are neither paid minimum wage nor inexperienced. I have three friends who work for them right now. Also, around here there are plenty of wannabe baristas and about a million espresso stands, so starbucks has plenty of experienced people to choose from.
And where did I say that starbucks was the only coffeeshop, ever? I know what a coffeeshop is. I was trying to explain to the other posters who seemed to think the only thing you got for your 3.50 was a cup a coffee. I’m sorry I said “starbucks” instead of “starbucks and your other local coffeeshops”.