I’d say it’s absolutely within the criteria.
It’s almost like the Isrealites and their manna: I’m forced to gather a double portion the day before, so that I don’t run out. 
I don’t think they were worried about straying from their business model in and of itself as they were afraid that if they became too much like fast-food places, people would start expecting fast-food like prices and service (read faster service). Since Starbucks isn’t really equipped to compete in either area, no more sandwiches.
How about locally owned grocery stores closed on Sundays because “everyone is in church”? Drives me nuts and makes getting things awkward (actually it doesn’t for me–I decided long ago to not support a business that had such a model, so I don’t shop there, but it fits).
This thread reminds me of a video I had to watch for work entitled, “The Road to Abilene”. It’s about businesses making decisions because no one has the courage to speak up or take a stand.
Federated Department Stores turning Marshall Field’s into Macy’s, thus killing a beloved Chicago institution.
The actual story, at least that Starbucks told their employees: they want their stores to smell like a coffee shop, and not like a McDonalds.
Yeah, they’re pretty good. Cheap, and they’re each around 200 calories. Pretty much beats the pants off any other grab-and-go breakfast sandwich you can get from McD’s, 7-11, etc.
Not only that, but also selling very old (by now) Frango mints and once they’re gone, discontinuing them (according to the lady behind the counter).
I hate Macy’s and don’t shop there (whenever possible). Yes, I know it would still be Macy’s, but bring back the Marshall Field & Co. to Chicago. I’ll come back, and bring my kid’s wedding registeries etc when they get married. I’ll go back to buying christening gifts and wedding gifts etc there, instead of Carson’s. Stoopit Federated Department stores.
ok, rant over.
Calling the Washington Bullets the Washington Wizards. (Well, if you want to nitpick, call them the Capital Bullets, Baltimore Bullets, Chicago Zephyrs or Chicago Packers).
Sorry to be getting to this so late, but why was it posted in Cafe Society? I’m moving it to IMHO, where it seems better suited.
(deleted duplicate post)
I hope you did that to boost sales :dubious:
According to a buddy who loves Hong Kong action movies, Miramax decided to only release Pan&Scan dubbed versions of a bunch of older Jackie Chan and Jet Li movies. No original Chinese soundtrack, no anamorphic widescreen. It costs less to provide subtitles than to do dubbing, including the original soundtrack is essentially free, as is a full transfer of the original film format. You can just mask it for the “full-screen” version if you want to, but it doesn’t cost much more than the initial transfer. Really dumb when more and more people are going for wide format TVs.
The result is that a lot of people who actually care about watching those movies have to import the official releases from Hong Kong, which have both Chinese and English, with subtitles in both languages, and have the original film format. The hurdle there is the region coding, which I think is in place for no other reason than to screw people in situations like this. It’s also a major pain in the ass for bilinguals or expats. This is the kind of crap that basically creates a market for grey- and black-market bootlegs, hacked players, cracked copy protection.
People like my friend buy tons of movies. He’s got hundreds of DVDs and is working on blu-ray releases now. There’s no way he’s going to shell out for the shitty crippled release. Regular people aren’t going to buy many old foreign movies, even if they’re cheap. What the hell market were they going for when they made those decisions?
A related thing is that some anime releases are better in the US than in Japan. He told me about a new one he’s interested in getting, Appleseed Ex Machina. The US release is on blu-ray for about $20. Japan only gets a DVD release, and it’s going to cost ¥7,000 (over $60). Granted, Japan’s media prices are 2x to 3x that of the US (standard price for new DVDs is around ¥3,500–4,000) but having only the DVD format available seems to be a very, very dumb thing.
Wasn’t that because of sales, they were getting a shoeing from Pepsi?
That IS directly related to sales. The company thought their records would not sell because guitar groups were ‘on their way out’! Too bad they didn’t consult a physic!
As I recall things, Coke’s market share was falling, although part of that was that consumers were switching to diet and other soft drinks, not necessarily between Coke and Pepsi, and Coke wanted to maintain its place as the favorite “full strength” cola. So to maintain and hopefully grow Coke’s market share, it felt it had to change after blind taste-tests showed consumers had a preference for the sweeter formulation (much like Pepsi) that was to become New Coke. The New Coke Wikipedia page is an interesting read on this topic.
I suppose you could argue that sales could be a reason, but I don’t think Coke was “getting a shoeing from Pepsi” at the time, especially if it had a slight edge over Pepsi in terms of sales. Would “future market share” be included in the sales category? Regardless, it was a bad decision.
Here is a related column from the Master.
dietcokevsTab
Methinks Coke has shot themselves in the foot several times, but I prefer Pepsi anyway.
Huh? “A rousing success”? Where did you get this from? The breakfast sandwich thing has been a huge failure; it is deemed one of the reasons (along with over-rapid expansion) that Starbucks’ profitability has taken a dive over the past two years. I’ve never read anything in any business section, paper or magazine that hasn’t held this up as a prime example of “sticking to your core business model”.
Cites:
A recent article fron the WSJ two months ago writes: Mr. Schultz [resuming his former role as CEO] told investors Monday that he plans to revive Starbucks by opening U.S. stores at a slower pace and refocusing on what made Starbucks successful in the first place: serving unique beverages in an appealing environment. He is responsible for helping the business grow from four locations in 1982 to more than 15,000 outlets world-wide. Though Mr. Schultz stepped down as CEO in 2000, he has remained chairman and had an active role at the company. […] Starbucks has added hot breakfast sandwiches to about 2,600 U.S. locations as of this past summer. But analysts say they haven’t increased sales enough to justify the cost of heating equipment and labor. Mr. Schultz has complained that, in some Starbucks locations, the sandwiches have created an unpleasant smell. Starbucks lunch offerings, available in more than two-thirds of its company-owned locations in the U.S., also could be reconfigured as part of the strategy change.
A recent NY Times article writes: *Some Wall Street analysts have pointed to specific problems that Starbucks needs to tackle, from a lack of new products to a failure to handle morning traffic adequately in crowded stores. Sales of breakfast sandwiches and drinks like frappuccinos have been disappointing.
Marc Greenberg, an analyst at Deutsche Bank, questioned Starbucks initiatives that encouraged competition with fast-food chains, like drive-through windows and an expanding menu of food.
“Starbucks is all about fresh ground coffee,” he said. “As for the food, there’s no kitchen in the store. How fresh can it be?”*
And from a personal perspective, it’s clearly the right move. Their breakfast stuff was awful: frozen pre-cooked egg and sausage sandwiches nuked in a microwave and the like. Bleah. I literally know of nobody who has tried the stuff and been a repeat customer.
With all the fresh, griddle-made (and cheaper) egg and bacon breakfast options available all over the city, even from breakfast food carts on the sidewalk, there was absolutely no reason to go to Starbucks if food was a priority – and if you’re there for the coffee and picking up some food to go with it, the croissants and other baked goods serve just fine.
OK, in more suburban areas where people drive up to a Starbucks and are accustomed to eating consistently mediocre-to-bad fast food in a car, maybe there’s a market for this stuff. But it’s my impression that many, if not most of Starbucks’ locations are in dense urban areas or malls/shopping centers where there’s plenty of competition for food within walking distance, and freshly made will beat frozen/nuked every single time.
I love Starbucks sausage & egg sandwiches. MUCH better than those at Dunkin’ Donuts.
Their baked goods, on the other hand, are fairly tasteless, dry, and crumbly, except for the vanilla cupcake, which is heaven, and which they only sell for a few months a year.
Now you know how Detroiters felt when your Marshall Field’s devoured our Hudson’s. Ha!