Yup, the chain that’s already everywhere is buying one of its main competitors-- although it says it will keep the two brands distinct.
Now, I don’t really care about this, since I don’t drink coffee, and I already live in the city that has two Starbucks on the same street corner, so hopefully I’ll get to look at different signs every now and then :rolleyes:
But I have a theory about why Starbucks has opened up the drip on its caffeinated cash flow: The Olympics.
Yup, turns out Seattle’s Best is the official coffee of the 2010 winter games. So if Whistler wins the Olympic bid for that year, all the Starbucks would have to close up shop or paper over their signs in any official olympic venue. And there’s about 5 Starbucks in the Whistler village, with one Seattle’s Best outlet. Not to mention all the Starbucks in the city of Vancouver itself that would have to cover up their mermaids because they’re too close to the 5-ring circus…
Well we just got a Seattle’s Best around here a few months ago and I like it. The dogs are great, I just hope they don’t push the prices higher because they are right on the borderline for me to begin with.
If the price goes up, I’m not shopping there again, no matter how dang good their dogs are!!!
gasp NOOOOOOO! Not Seattle’s Best! Why couldn’t they buy out Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf? That would be an improvement. But Seattle’s Best rocks my world! sniffle They better not mess with my mocha.
Interesting – they often compete for prime retail locations.
I was in a class with some Starbucks people a couple of years ago. My guess is that they realized that they draw two different types of coffee drinkers, as Starbuck’s sharper, more bitter blend is often termed Mediterranean and the SBC blend termed Scandanavian.
Whatever is being done, it’s likely a market segmentation strategy. Perhaps they’ll use the two locations to develop a wider menu.
Starbucks is merely adequate, but SBC is my favorite higher end coffee brand.
Damn. Another good thing potentially shot to pieces. I’m sure they’ll keep things distinct for a while, but I’m willing to bet within 2 years Starbucks phases SBC into the fold and absorbs them.
It depends on the barista. (wrt hot chocolate, SBC and Tullys do tend to be better than Starbucks, though)
However, I’ve finally found an independent coffee house that makes lovely chocolate. Sadly, they’re in Interbay - so I’ve got to go quite out of my way to get there.
I’ve always liked Starbucks just 'cause I can tell there’s actually coffee in my latte or mocha. At SBC, of which I’ve been to several in the Seattle area, it’s always just tasted like warm or chocolate milk. A single-shot tall Starbucks latte has more coffee flavour than a tripple-shot tall SBC latte.
That aside, I’m kind of surprised to see Starbucks annexing SBC - Tully’s isn’t really that wide-spread, so it’s kind of like letting Pepsi buy Coke with the only competitor left being Hansen’s.
SBC is fine, okay, I can take it or leave it. Starbucks is totally undrinkable. They roast the beans too long, by a factor of 10 or so. When Starbucks starts supplying beans to SBC, or teaching them how to roast, is when I stop going to either one. Oh well, it’s not like I can afford regular lattes anymore, so what’s the difference.
SBC offered rice milk for its lattes; Starbucks didn’t/doesn’t. Just another indication of how much Starbucks sucks. Its expansion is, by definition, a bad thing.
Tully’s: okay coffee, but I’ve felt the need to boycott them since they bought Rainier Brewery and replaced the big neon “R”, which has been there forever of course, with a big neon “T”. :rolleyes:
Starbucks is okay, SBC is too bitter for my tastes – but REAL coffee is found below sea level, where Community Coffee (either New Orleans Blend or French Roast) is the nectar of the GODS! There were coffeehouses on every block in New Orleans before the Starbucks people were a twinkle in their parents’ eyes!