I suppose this belongs in the thread.
In general I don’t like Starbucks coffee, but the cinnamon dolce latte is not bad. Otherwise I think their coffee is burnt-tasting and bitter, and the flavored drinks are sickeningly sweet. But I live in a magical land with lots of local coffee shops, so I have better options.
Has anyone else seen the McDonald’s commercial with the stupid kid who goes to McDonald’s to buy lattes and mochas (I think for his girlfriend’s family, but I didn’t see the whole thing so that’s a little fuzzy), and he thinks he’s so smart for saving money. :rolleyes: If someone told me they were bringing me a mocha, I’d be so disappointed if they brought me coffee from McDonalds. (I might forgive them if they also brought me a cinnamon melt, though.)
That’s actually about what a Starbucks coffee costs in Australia. Which is a country which collectively loves it coffee so much Starbucks practically went out of business here, because literally every cafe you encounter - even out in the sticks - does pretty good coffee.
That’s the thing. Around here, most cafes do really bad coffee. I mean, really, really bad. So even though Starbucks is mediocre in a universal sense, it’s still much better than you can get anywhere else in the neighborhood.
I rather like that American Diner-style coffee but yeah, I have to admit on the whole US cafe coffee isn’t great, at least compared to what’s available here or in New Zealand. Even the English have decent coffee too.
A week from now we’ll be in the Caribbean (St Martin), where I’ll be able to get an espresso at any beach bar that beats anything I’ve ever had in the US.
And yet there will be people ordering “Café Americano”, which is an espresso intentionally fucked over to taste like what they’re used to.
You’re in Paris?
This is way off base. A proper Americano is a good espresso diluted with water, approximately 1:1. It’s not at all in the same league with “drip coffee” or “filter coffee” (the stuff most people are used to).
For those who hate Starbucks coffee (a group that includes me), try ordering an Americano next time instead of “black coffee.” “Black coffee” will get you their horrible drip coffee. An Americano (especially with an extra shot) will be a much, much better cup of coffee, even at Starbucks.
Unfortunately some places (Mexico, I’m looking at you!) don’t stop to think that “Americano” isn’t the same as drip/filter coffee!
Going to college in Seattle, I remember when the different coffees (Sumatra, mocha Java, Pikes Place, etc.) actually tasted different from each other.
I called it a “Café Americano” because that’s what the beach bar called their attempt to please Americans (not a Starbucks). A beachbar with no electricity, relying on a generator to power a state of the art espresso machine and producing the finest espresso I’ve ever experienced.
There are Americans who take one look at a beautiful cup of espresso, complete with a curled lemon peel, and sneer, “dontcha have any real coffee?” Yeah, they are offered the “Café Americano”.
I didn’t look up when or where they started. I just know that by late 80s early 90s they had adulterated their chocolates with every fake ingredient know to man and added hardeners and other agents to their chocolate until it was pretty much indistinguishable from cardboard. But it made them ship well, so there is that.
Since the quality had plummeted they needed a marketing coup to save the brand. So suddenly fake chocolates in a gold box was the must have item for Valentines Day.
As long as you mean “semi-automatic” when you say “state of the art” espresso machine, I agree. Those “fully automatic” machines which grind it, tamp it, brew it all with the push of a button are not known for making godshots.
And “state of the art” doesn’t have to mean a Rancilio Silvia either (tho that can sure help). Knowing the basics allows one to make a run at pulling a godshot on any good, solid semi-automatic machine.
Can you cite any of this?
I also drink unsweetened black coffee and cannot stand Starbucks. And every year my mother gives me a Starbucks gift card for Christmas. So this year I gathered up the new and leftover from before cards and bought a cold drink cup in citron powder coat and a green hued stainless travel mug which I fill with drip coffee from home.
If you order a blonde or any other light roast and asked them to prepare it as a pour over, you’ll get a perfectly decent cup of coffee at Starbucks, IMO.
You realize this is all wrong, correct? Godiva started in Belgium in the late 20s. It didn’t show up in the US, like Czarcasm mentioned, until the late 60s/early 70s and it was marketed as a luxury product from the get-go, with a premium price point when they debuted. They were $4/lb in 1966, which is about $30/lb in today’s money.
Cite, although I had to cut & paste the text from the search result which gave more of the text.
And the gold ballotin (which is the gold box), I see referenced as far back as 1977 (and possibly 1971) in my Google Books search, so the idea that the gold box is a new marketing idea to save the company from impending financial doom doesn’t make sense either. It had been a luxury product from the get-go in the US, and if it wasn’t originally sold in the gold boxes, it was soon enough, and far behind your late 80s, early 90s timeline.
Now, I’m not going to disagree with your assessment of the quality of Godiva chocolate, but your recounting of the history of their brand here and their boxes is incorrect.
When you Starbucks haters espressed your opinion to someone at Starbucks, what was the response?
I agree that it’s not really perceived as premium anymore, but that’s mostly because they’re (Starbucks) victims of their own success. Back when they started out, they did definitely have a certain cachet as “premium coffee that’s readily available”, as in say… 2000-ish, when there were a handful of local coffee shops serving excellent coffee, and a whole lot of places serving really awful coffee. Starbucks tapped into the market of people who were drinking the bad stuff because there really wasn’t an attractive alternative, especially if one wasn’t interested in investing the time and trouble to brew better coffee at home for whatever reason.
So at some point, places like 7-11, McDonald’s, etc… realized that Starbucks was absolutely killing their coffee sales, and they upped their game in response. So did grocery stores, so now what was once sort of special and high-ish end, is now middle of the road, and others upped their game beyond Starbucks, and we have good local coffee shops as well.
Hell, I hadn’t even HEARD the term “barista” until Starbucks brought it into common usage about a decade and a half ago, if that gives you an idea of how influential they are in the development of the US coffee culture.
What this means in terms of the OP is that once upon a time, Starbucks coffee was better than the alternative, which was likely Folgers that had been percolated to death. But now that they’ve become so successful, their standard product isn’t as good relative to the other options as it used to be, so some of us are saying it’s “bad”, which isn’t necessarily so; it’s just a matter of having more and better options today.
I’m certainly not denying their influence. They are the force that made pretty much everyone step up their coffee game and now I can get a reasonable cup of coffee nearly anywhere in the US. My first encounter with them, though, was c. 1994/1995 and in the context of an area that already had “coffee culture,” so they were seen, at least by us cafe denizens, as soulless corporate coffee threatening to take out all the great ma & pop coffeeshops. Which is why I’m kind of amused at myself, two decades nigh, defending the place. 
But the quality HAS gotten worse. In the early 90s in college, as I stated above, you could tell a difference between the various coffees they sell. Now they are all generic espresso roasted and their focus is on drinks instead of coffee.