Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Starbucks Responds In Kind To Oxfam YouTube Video

Posted by kdawson on Tue Jan 02, 2007 05:16 PM
from the better-latte-than-never dept.
Communications The Internet
Kligmond writes "Last week, Starbucks placed a video on YouTube responding to a video posted by the Oxfam Charity. The Oxfam video was launched in conjunction with 'Starbucks Day of Action,' held December 16th, when activists visited Starbucks locations across the world in protest of the coffee retailer's alleged mistreatment of Ethiopian farmers. The Starbucks video calmly addresses the Oxfam allegations, citing an impasse over Ethiopian trademark legalities. Starbucks claims the refusal to sign a trademark agreement with Ethiopia is a stumbling block they hope to resolve on behalf of the farmers. The coffee chain's representative goes on to refute the contention that Starbucks refuses to pay a fair price for its coffee reserves and, in fact, routinely pays well above commodity price, and above fair trade price. Unlike many recent ineffectual corporate reactions to social journalism and networking eruptions, Starbucks' response is unique in that the corporation managed Oxfam's unconventional assault in a very unconventional way, via YouTube. Regardless of the outcome of this particular incident, the move on Starbucks' part comes off as unmistakably in touch with today's communication modes and methods."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Starbucks Responds In Kind To Oxfam YouTube Video 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • And me thinking it was Kara who posted... (Score:5, Funny)

    by thrill12 (711899) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @05:22PM (#17436442)
    ...a response...

    But why ? Does she crave for good coffee on the Battlestar ? Didn't the 12 colonies invest in fair trade coffee ? Why is she all of a sudden so sensitive about why Oxfam posted a youtube video anyway ?

    What new plot twist of BG do I not understand ?

  • In other words: Oxfam just got own3d! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 02 2007, @05:22PM (#17436452)
    Next time do a little research Oxfam. Starbucks is one of the most socially responsible companies out there. They are pretty much why their is such a thing as "fair trade" coffee.

    And to all the people that say *bucks pushes out the mom and pops: when was the last time they offered carreers or health insurance?
    • I think my main complaint about starbucks is the fact that they don't seem to know how to *not* burn their coffee beans.

      I'm glad that they are relatively socaially concious, but my personal opinion is that their coffee sucks. When I was still on campus, I really prefered the one coffee shop off campus that was also all fair trade stuff.
      • I don't understand why they do it. I know they know better. In fact, they used to roast to a "full city" roast, which the best gourmet roasters have always used, and which I prefer to lighter or darker roasts. They've since moved to a French roast, or even an Italian roast, which is too dark for me.

        More importantly, from what I understand, they don't do any real pre or post roast QA to remove clinkers, which are light, immature beans that give a grassy or off taste to coffee. They also don't date their roasts like a good gourmet shop will. As 90% of varietal flavor in coffee is gone two days after roasting, this is crucial to enjoying good coffee. When I go to my local roaster, who is an true coffee enthusiast like myself, I just say "Give me a half pound of whatever you just roasted."

        OTOH, they are a model of social repsonsibility, treating employees and suppliers well and giving back to the community through charity.

        • Re:In other words: Oxfam just got own3d! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by AuMatar (183847) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @06:58PM (#17437462)
          Because 99% of their customers don't give a shit. They want a cup of coffee. Not a fine dining experience. They don't know the difference between roasts, what a clinker is, or what the date on a roast means (nor do I for that matter- is it newer is better, or is it a wine thing where older is?). Hell, a lot of them don't really know what the difference between a mocha and a latte is. They just want a cup of Joe at a known quality level. Maybe a quick snack too. Thats what Starbucks provides. Its pretty much like McDonalds- you don't go there for a great burger, you go there for food that you can predict how bad it will be.

          • Re:In other words: Oxfam just got own3d! (Score:4, Funny)

            by Sloppy (14984) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @07:24PM (#17437742) Homepage Journal
            What I don't get, is why these people don't simply buy their coffee at McDonalds, where it costs a lot less. ;-)
          • Newer is better, although after three days you don't have to worry because it's gotten as bad as it's going to get for weeks. After three days, gourmet coffee will still taste good, but 90% of what differentiates, say, an east African coffee from a central American coffee is gone. That $30/pound Kona or Blue Mountain is now no different than a good $6/pound Columbian.

            Some differences, notably body and acidity, will still be there, but the complex and subtle flavors have all evaporated.

            A clinker is a lightweight, immature bean that tastes awful. Ever taste rancid, burnt, grassy, or hay-like flavors in coffee? If brewing isn't the problem, those flavors are most likely from clinkers.

            That's probably more than you ever wanted to know about coffee. I only know all this because my college girlfriend worked at a REALLY snooty coffe roaster, Willoughby's in New Haven, CT. If you want to try some really good coffee, I think they do mail-order.

        • Re:In other words: Oxfam just got own3d! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by plantman-the-womb-st (776722) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @07:00PM (#17437474)
          Well, it's simple really. The reason for the over-roasted beans at Starbucks (which causes those of us who like the taste of straight coffee and espresso to cringe) is the fact that Starbucks doesn't sell coffee. They sell coffee flavored drinks. Starbucks is responsible for the latte craze after all. Most all of their products contain so many other flavorings , dairy and sugar that the coffee has to be stronger or you wouldn't taste it. If this seems unrealistic, just go to a Starbucks and order black coffee or straight espresso. The looks the employees and other customers give you are priceless. They became a nationally known name by selling frapachinos, not coffee.

          • Re:In other words: Oxfam just got own3d! (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Binary Boy (2407) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @07:10PM (#17437582)
            Absolutely; as someone who savors a good shot of espresso, maybe with a dollop of foam if I'm feeling fancy, Starbucks is at best adequate. At least I can get espresso there, the only such supplier in most towns sadly, but their operations are not setup to serve great coffee, it's to serve 1200 calorie milk shakes disguised as "coffee drinks". Hell, in many of the Starbucks I stop in on my travels the staff calls it "expresso".

            Still, as another poster said, it's the McD's of coffee; you go there for the consistent experience - and the wifi - not the quality. The quality isn't nearly as *bad* as McDonalds, but it's not nearly as good as many of the places I used to go, before they folded trying to compete with Starbucks. And I agree with others - they are a remarkably socially conscious big business, they treat employees well, they are fairly locally active, and I have no problem with their success.

              • Re:In other words: Oxfam just got own3d! (Score:4, Insightful)

                by TobascoKid (82629) on Wednesday January 03 2007, @06:27AM (#17442248) Homepage
                But... to be back on topic... I too was of the opinion that Starbucks was a 'good' company, and it somewhat baffles me why organizations like Oxfam pick on them when there are truly BAD companies doing BAD things that they should be spending their time on.

                I think to some organizations, any global corporation is "bad" - there's no rationality behind it, and no amount of social responsibility will be enough to satisfy them, even if the corporation in question is giving a positive benefit to the world. Starbucks' perfectly legitimate disagreement with Ethiopian farmers is more than enough "justification" for people who are not being entirely rational to start protesting.
          • It really depends, I think, on the region. Or maybe people just don't like Starbuck's coffee, and assume they don't know what they're doing. However, my brother is a Starbucks barista and "Coffee Master" (which involved rather a lot of training in coffee) here in Seattle, and I get the impression that they really, really care about their coffee. He can tell you volumes about any one of their varieties (of coffee, not coffee drink), and even more about they're blends and why they're blended that way. He routinely gives and attends coffee tastings.

            It's important to make the distinction between brewed coffee and espresso. To be fair, Starbuck's espresso is admitedly a weak point. Like you say, it has to be strong do make an impression in the coffee drinks. But their brewed coffee varieties are something they spend a lot of effort on. They do roast darker than a lot of people, but as far as I can tell, it because they genuinely like it better that way.

            I know it's popular to assume that Starbucks doesn't care about coffee, but that's simply not true.

        • Starbucks QA (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Frosty Piss (770223) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @07:04PM (#17437506)
          I hear this business about "burnt" beans all the time, but I have to wonder if they do it because their customers like the product? There are certainly many alternatives to Starbucks (which I use whenever possible)...

          As to QA, this just isn't so. My son did his internship at the Starbucks roasting facility in Auburn, WA, an operation that is highly computer controlled (so they do know exactly how they are roasting the beans), they have an extensive QA program. So, if the coffee sucks, it's because they like it that way (!!!).

      • Re:In other words: Oxfam just got own3d! (Score:4, Informative)

        by Sloppy (14984) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @07:29PM (#17437774) Homepage Journal
        Read this. [wikipedia.org] The darker you roast, the less it matters what kind of bean you started with -- all beans are the same. For a national brand, that is desirable.
    • Starbucks is one of the most socially responsible companies out there. They are pretty much why their is such a thing as "fair trade" coffee.

      Starbucks is certainly quite successful at projecting an image of social responsiblity, yes - so much so that uninformed people like you believe that they created the fair trade movement, when actually Fair Trade is a decades old idea and Starbucks use of a tiny amout of Fair Trade coffee is just greenwash [organicconsumers.org].

      While Starbucks is certainly not the Pure Concentrated Evil of, say, a Halliburton or a Monsanto, neither are they the angels that their PR department would like you to believe. That they seem to treat their direct employees fairly well, is no indication of what ethics apply (or don't apply) to their deals with suppliers.

      And to all the people that say *bucks pushes out the mom and pops: when was the last time they offered carreers or health insurance?

      Uh huh. So rather than owning one's own small business, being a successful entrepreneur, the new American dream is to work for a national franchise, so that you can get health insurance. How incredibly fscking sad is that?

      • Re:In other words: Oxfam just got own3d! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by AuMatar (183847) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @07:02PM (#17437488)
        Uh huh. So rather than owning one's own small business, being a successful entrepreneur, the new American dream is to work for a national franchise, so that you can get health insurance. How incredibly fscking sad is that?


        Being an entepeneur was supposed to be the dream? I find that even more depressing. Working extremely long hours, risking bankrupcy every day, insane stress levels, all for money? No thanks, I'd rather put in my 8 hrs a day, make a fair wage, and enjoy my life.

        As for the health insurance- vote the current bunch out and vote in some liberals who will actually work on healthcare reform.

      • Re:In other words: Oxfam just got own3d! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by chriss (26574) * <chriss@memomo.net> on Tuesday January 02 2007, @09:16PM (#17438754) Homepage
        Starbucks is certainly quite successful at projecting an image of social responsiblity, yes - so much so that uninformed people like you believe that they created the fair trade movement, when actually Fair Trade is a decades old idea and Starbucks use of a tiny amout of Fair Trade coffee is just greenwash. [organicconsumers.org]

        The article you linked just says that Starbucks only buys a small amount of FairTrade coffee. But it says nothing about how much fairly traded coffee they buy. These are two different concepts. FairTrade is a trademark for a certification process. If something is labeled you can be assured that it is fairly traded, but if something is not labeled FairTrade you cannot be sure of the opposite.

        Starbucks is a sufficient large buyer to make it interesting to implement their own fair trading. And there may be good reasons for this, e.g. the overhead of the FairTrade process. In the YouTube video they claim that they often pay even more than FairTrade, and this seems completely possible since they could optimize logistics in a way that selling FairTrade coffee to consumers wouldn't allow.

        So the complaint in the linked article is that the money Starbucks spends on coffee is not run through the FairTrade organization, not that the coffee is not traded fairly. Somehow they forgot to make this more obvious.

        Should any fairly traded product be bought from FairTrade? I don't think so. Competition does not only lower prices, it also increases efficiency (thereby allowing lowering the prices). If Starbucks can pay the coffee farmers more than FairTrade due to their better process, I welcome this, because it will increase the consumption of fairly traded coffee in a significant way, while this might not happen if the price difference stays the same as it is today possibly due to inefficiencies in the FairTrade process.

        I don't know these things, I have no numbers about how much Starbucks pays coffee farmers etc. But I have the ability to distinguish between a justified criticism and someone trying to defend their monopoly by calling someone else unethical.

        • Re:In other words: Oxfam just got own3d! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by MillionthMonkey (240664) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @08:11PM (#17438230)
          Which would you rather work for? And if you say the local roaster, you clearly have never had an ambulance ride and multiple-day stay in the hospital. Neither have I, but I know what they cost.

          There is no one "cost" to know; the screwed up American health system is notorious for charging different prices depending on who you are and whether you have employer-provided health insurance (cheapest price), health insurance you paid for yourself (ripoff prices), or no health insurance (extortion). Generally, the more you're hurting for money, the more zeroes they append to your bill.

          The local roaster will also pay a much higher premium than Starbucks would have to pay for the same coverage. And if you buy health insurance yourself, instead of getting it from your employer, you run a much higher risk of having your coverage retroactively cancelled if you get sick.

          But remember, best health care system in the world.

    • Why "fair trade" is a horrible concept (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 02 2007, @06:40PM (#17437294)
      What about Fairtrade? Its aim is to address "the injustice of low prices" by guaranteeing that producers receive a fair price "however unfair the conventional market is", according to FLO International's website. In essence, it means paying producers an above-market "Fairtrade" price for their produce, provided they meet particular labour and production standards. In the case of coffee, for example, Fairtrade farmers receive a minimum of $1.26 per pound for their coffee, or $0.05 above the market price if it exceeds that floor. This premium is passed back to the producers to spend on development programmes. The market for Fairtrade products is much smaller than that for organic products, but is growing much faster: it increased by 37% to reach 1.1 billion ($1.4 billion) in 2005. Who could object to that?

      Economists, for a start. The standard economic argument against Fairtrade goes like this: the low price of commodities such as coffee is due to overproduction, and ought to be a signal to producers to switch to growing other crops. Paying a guaranteed Fairtrade premium--in effect, a subsidy--both prevents this signal from getting through and, by raising the average price paid for coffee, encourages more producers to enter the market. This then drives down the price of non-Fairtrade coffee even further, making non-Fairtrade farmers poorer. Fairtrade does not address the basic problem, argues Tim Harford, author of "The Undercover Economist" (2005), which is that too much coffee is being produced in the first place. Instead, it could even encourage more production.

      Mr Bretman of FLO International disagrees. In practice, he says, farmers cannot afford to diversify out of coffee when the price falls. Fairtrade producers can use the premiums they receive to make the necessary investments to diversify into other crops. But surely the price guarantee actually reduces the incentive to diversify?

      Another objection to Fairtrade is that certification is predicated on political assumptions about the best way to organise labour. In particular, for some commodities (including coffee) certification is available only to co-operatives of small producers, who are deemed to be most likely to give workers a fair deal when deciding how to spend the Fairtrade premium. Coffee plantations or large family firms cannot be certified. Mr Bretman says the rules vary from commodity to commodity, but are intended to ensure that the Fairtrade system helps those most in need. Yet limiting certification to co-ops means "missing out on helping the vast majority of farm workers, who work on plantations," says Mr Wille of the Rainforest Alliance, which certifies producers of all kinds.

      Guaranteeing a minimum price also means there is no incentive to improve quality, grumble coffee-drinkers, who find that the quality of Fairtrade brews varies widely. Again, the Rainforest Alliance does things differently. It does not guarantee a minimum price or offer a premium but provides training, advice and better access to credit. That consumers are often willing to pay more for a product with the RA logo on it is an added bonus, not the result of a formal subsidy scheme; such products must still fend for themselves in the marketplace. "We want farmers to have control of their own destinies, to learn to market their products in these competitive globalised markets, so they are not dependent on some NGO," says Mr Wille.

      But perhaps the most cogent objection to Fairtrade is that it is an inefficient way to get money to poor producers. Retailers add their own enormous mark-ups to Fairtrade products and mislead consumers into thinking that all of the premium they are paying is passed on. Mr Harford calculates that only 10% of the premium paid for Fairtrade coffee in a coffee bar trickles down to the producer. Fairtrade coffee, like the organic produce sold in supermarkets, is used by retailers as a means of identifying price-insensitive consumers who will pay more, he says.

      As with organic food, the Fairtrade movement is unde

  • Good for Starbucks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by p0tat03 (985078) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @05:24PM (#17436468)

    It's nice to see a company address accusations directly, without resorting to lawsuits or just more propaganda. These points were well refuted in the vid, though I would personally like to see a bit more documentation provided to show that they're not just pulling things out of their collective asses.

    I wish other companies would follow this lead - transparent, straight-forward, no-BS rebuttals of claims against them. Apple, where's your rebuttal against Greenpeace?

    • Re:Good for Starbucks (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Otter (3800) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @05:52PM (#17436744) Journal
      It's nice to see a company address accusations directly, without resorting to lawsuits or just more propaganda.

      I had the same reaction at first, but you know -- if Starbucks is correct (*If*. I have no idea.) and a very large, very wealthy group is engaged in a completely dishonest, high-profile smear campaign against their business, that group should get its pants sued off.

    • Technicaly It Is (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Mateorabi (108522) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @05:54PM (#17436772) Homepage
      Well technicaly this video is a form of propeganda. Then again, so is the original Oxfam video. Propeganda is an extremely broad category and doesn't always have to mean dissembling or promoting falsehoods. Unfortunately the word 'propeganda' has lost it's neutrality in the modern lexicon and often has negative conotations for people.


      Propeganda is merely an attempt to sway a group's opinion through communication. "Getting your message out." That message can be truthful or lies, honest or deceptive, present all facts or cherry pick; it just needs to be pursuasive. I think sometims the negative connotation actualy discourages non-deceptive propeganda from more honest parties because they feer being accused of engaging in 'propeganda'.

      • Re:No Good for Starbucks (Score:5, Insightful)

        by lostatredrock (972881) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @06:06PM (#17436922)
        What does that have to do with anything? From the intro to your post I was expecting some refute to the claim that Starbucks pays higher than market value for their coffee. Instead you offered a bunch of proof of the fact that the average Ethiopian is poor. How is that Starbuck's fault? They are not responsible for the welfare of the Ethiopian people, they do appear to be trying to help, but to use the fact that Ethiopians are poor as 'proof' of Starbucks not being socially responsible seems to be a bit of a stretch.

      • Re:No Good for Starbucks (Score:4, Insightful)

        by mi (197448) <mi+slashdot@aldan.algebra.com> on Tuesday January 02 2007, @06:10PM (#17436984) Homepage
        "Above market" means lots of things, most of which don't make starbucks look very good once the general conditions in Ethiopia are added to the discussion.

        What would you rather they do instead? Stop buying Ethiopian coffee at all? Pay even more for the stuff grown in Ethiopia and thus attract even more growers to the already saturated market [economist.com]?

        If Oxfam were really concerned about the third-world farmers, they would've been making noise against Europe's farmer-subsidies, against the smaller-but-still-significant American ones, and against Japan's protectionism. Instead Oxfam goes against a prominent corporation — they are well aware of the shortness of the attention span of their contributors... Much easier to bash a corporation (especially an American one), than to be "against the small farmers", is not it?

        • Re:No Good for Starbucks (Score:4, Insightful)

          by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 02 2007, @06:16PM (#17437042) Homepage Journal
          If Oxfam were really concerned about the third-world farmers, they would've been making noise against Europe's farmer-subsidies, against the smaller-but-still-significant American ones, and against Japan's protectionism.

          I think they'd be going after non-shade-growing coffee farmers, since they're the ones who created the oversupply in the coffee market. As a bonus, they could get a greenpeace tie-in, since removing the shade plants has devastated the biota in many locations.

  • ex-starbucks employee (Score:5, Informative)

    by the dark hero (971268) <adriatic_hero @ h otmail.com> on Tuesday January 02 2007, @05:26PM (#17436498) Homepage
    While working at starbucks they urge you to be an absolute coffee enthusiast(not necessarily a drinker), but they really do well in taking care of its employees, surrounding community and the farmers.

    Here is the mission statement that they live their lives by:

    Establish Starbucks as the premier purveyor of the finest coffee in the world while maintaining our uncompromising principles as we grow. The following six guiding principles will help us measure the appropriateness of our decisions:

    * Provide a great work environment and treat each other with respect and dignity.

    * Embrace diversity as an essential component in the way we do business.

    * Apply the highest standards of excellence to the purchasing, roasting and fresh delivery of our coffee.

    * Develop enthusiastically satisfied customers all of the time.

    * Contribute positively to our communities and our environment.

    * Recognize that profitability is essential to our future success.

    • 1) Promote conformity by putting a Starbucks on every corner and making each one look the same

      2) Promote Brand loyalty by pushing Gift Cards thereby forcing even non-customers to occasionally consume Starbucks

      3) Say that we embrace diversity while actually embracing conformity (see above)

      4) Reduce the number of artistic venues by putting small coffee shops out of business with our pre-packaged experience

      5) Raise the prices on our addictive substance every six months

      6) Profit!!!

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Itchyeyes (908311)
        I find it very ironic that the most apt rebuttal, I can think of, to the arguments you present would simply be to refer you to the very episode of Southpark that you reference with the way your formatted your post.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Itchyeyes (908311)
          For an in depth explanation I would point you to "The Undercover Economist" by Tim Harford. In short though, the answer is simply "that's what people are willing to pay".

    • So, you worked for Starbuck's, eh? (Score:5, Funny)

      by 0xdeadbeef (28836) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @05:47PM (#17436690) Homepage Journal
      What's the freakin' deal with making up new words for small, medium, and large?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by the dark hero (971268)
        there is an actual "small" size, but it was widely unpopular to us fat americans that love to consume so much. :P

        seriously, there is a small size(which i forget the name of),tall is the medium, grande is italian for large and venti is italian for 20 as in 20oz of zomg expensive coffee.

          • Re:So, you worked for Starbuck's, eh? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by I'll Provide The War (1045190) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @06:16PM (#17437044)
            Here is a very interesting story about the "short" cup at Starbucks.

            http://www.slate.com/id/2133754/ [slate.com]

            Starbucks Economics
            Solving the mystery of the elusive "short" cappuccino.

            Here's a little secret that Starbucks doesn't want you to know: They will serve you a better, stronger cappuccino if you want one, and they will charge you less for it. Ask for it in any Starbucks and the barista will comply without batting an eye. The puzzle is to work out why.

            The drink in question is the elusive "short cappuccino"--at 8 ounces, a third smaller than the smallest size on the official menu... ..continues
      • True story:

        So a certain anonymous individual went into a Starbuck's one morning, a bit cranky because he had to be up earlier than usual. He spoke to the individual at the cash register...

        Anon.: I'd like a medium chai, please.
        Register Person: Do you mean tall or grande?
        Anon.: I mean medium.
        Register Person: We don't sell a size called medium.
        Anon.: "Medium" is a description, not a name. You sell three sizes. I'd like the one in the middle.
        Register Person: We call that size "grande."
        Anon.: Right.
        Register Person: So what is it you'd like?
        Anon.: I'd like a medium chai, please.
        Register Person: You mean a "grande."
        Anon.: Haven't we already been through this?
        Register Person: I just would like to be certain.
        Anon.: You can be certain I'm not going to use your ridiculous trademarked name, when a descriptive adjective completely connotes my intent.
        Register Person: It's not a ridiculous name -- it's Italian!
        Anon.: Yes, and "chai" is either Chinese or Sanskrit. What's that got to do with it? The word I want in English is "medium."
        Register Person: Dude, what have you got against Italians?
        Anon.: Nothing. Well, perhaps they bear some responsibility for Madonna, but I think she's actually from New York.
        Register Person: Bay City, Michigan, actually. That'll be $3.50.

  • How hard is it? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kelbear (870538) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @05:28PM (#17436520)
    "Regardless of the outcome of this particular incident, the move on Starbucks' part comes off as unmistakably in touch with today's communication modes and methods."

    The final comment of the summary does have the ring of truth(or shall I say, truthiness?).

    But then I stop to think...c'mon, this is Youtube. How hard is it to post something on Youtube, a free service? What's more interesting is that this move is a suprise rather than the suprise itself.

    • Re:How hard is it? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by oni (41625) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @05:57PM (#17436804) Homepage
      >> How hard is it to post something on Youtube, a free service?

      uh well, it's easy to post on youtube, but I think you're missing the point.

      Most big megacorps don't "get it" Their decision making process involves things like lawyers who always fail on the side of caution. That's why, if you posts some completely made-up allegations about, for example Bank of America, then (if they even noticed what you had done) the Bank of America corporate execs would have a meeting in their conference room on the 400th floor of some far off building. They'd have to call in the CTO to explain to them exactly what this "ewe toob" thing was. Then the lawyers would caution against making any kind of direct rebuttal, because that might be seen as *insert lawyer-speak here*

      Meanwhile, Starbucks goes, "wtf, get a webcam we're going to respond to this bullshit"

      So you see, the point here isn't the ease or difficulty of youtube. The point is the that one corporation gets it and made a simple, common sense move.

      (btw, I hate Starbucks)

  • Probably a non story (Score:3, Interesting)

    by edwardpickman (965122) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @05:35PM (#17436594)
    Starbucks is actually well known for it's good treatment of it's employees. A significant amount of your coffee purchase goes to health insurance where as most large retailers have gone to mostly part time policy to avoid paying benefits. I'm guessing it's their size more than their practices that are making them the target. If you attack Joe's Coffee Hut for paying 20% below market price for dirt cheap beans raised by slave labor you ain't gettin' much press interest. Attack the king of the hill and the press takes notice even if they are in fact paying a fair price for the beans and there really is no story. I used to be a big fan of invegative stories but all too often these days the story is manufactured and once you know the details many turn out to be bogus. Starfbucks may not use Blue Mountain beans but they use good quality beans so I have to believe they pay a decent price for them. They sure charge enough. I use their Expresso beans because the supermarket brands are awful. $10 for a pound of coffee that will last for weeks isn't that bad.

  • I buy fair-trade products too (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dr Kool, PhD (173800) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @05:44PM (#17436670) Homepage Journal
    The fairest trade system in the history of man:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism [wikipedia.org]

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bmajik (96670)
        Monopolies cannot exist without government blessing. The failure of the market to prevent monopoly is not the fault of capitalism, but rather, the fault is with government involvement in the marketplace that allows and entrenches monopolies

        Examples of government blessing of monopoly:
        - land usage easements (for utilities, etc)
        - the copyright/patent system (for intellectual property)
        - airwaves / frequency ranges (for cell carriers, radio stations, etc)

        Can you think of some monopoly in the US that isn't suppo

  • Women (Score:5, Funny)

    by ch-chuck (9622) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @05:56PM (#17436794) Homepage
    I like my women like my coffee: expensive and easily available on many street corners.

  • And I do mean a little research... First, I watched both videos. The most notable thing is that neither Oxfam's video-mentioned webpage nor the video itself actually says what Starbucks is doing. They say that starbucks is preventing the manufacturers of this coffee from using the names of the coffee, but that's as close as they come to discussing the actual situation. I was however able to find the information on Oxfam's site using google: http://www.oxfam.org.uk/press/releases/starbucks26 1006.htm [oxfam.org.uk]. Here's the meat:

    Last year the Ethiopian government filed applications to trademark its most famous coffee names, Sidamo, Harar and Yirgacheffe. Securing the rights to these names would enable Ethiopia to capture more value from the trade, by controlling their use in the market and thereby enabling farmers to receive a greater share of the retail price. Ethiopia's coffee industry and farmers could earn an estimated £47 million extra per year.

    £3.2 billion company Starbucks prompted protests against the applications to be filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The USPTO has denied Ethiopia's applications for Sidamo and Harar, creating serious obstacles for its project.

    What, exactly, does "prompted protests" mean? It's a little further down.

    Starbucks intervened in the USPTO decision by prompting the National Coffee Association of USA, Inc. (NCA), of which it is a leading member, to oppose the approval of the trademarks.

    At a meeting held this past July at the Ethiopian Embassy, Embassy staff and advisers met with the NCA president to discuss a letter of protest filed against Ethiopia's trademark applications. Ethiopia had submitted its applications about one year earlier. According to staffers, when asked why after a year of doing nothing the NCA had decided to take action, the president of the NCA told them Starbucks had just brought it to the NCA's attention.

    Okay, so if Starbucks is part of the NCA, then they didn't prompt anything - they just did it.

    Let's take one more look at the press release.

    The Ethiopian government presented an agreement for Starbucks to sign in September, recognising the country's rights to the names Sidamo, Harar and Yirgacheffe and stating that additional benefits generated would go to small-scale coffee farmers who are currently living on the brink of survival. However, Starbucks has yet to respond affirmatively.

    "Starbucks works to protect and promote its own name and brand vigorously throughout the world, so how can it justify denying Ethiopia the right to do the same?" asked Phil Bloomer.

    Starbucks claims that to do so would be illegal, as far as I can see from their video. I don't know how that works out - maybe a lawyer can explain. But September? It's probably taken this long for their legal department to figure out what it says, let alone how they feel about it. We're talking about a document that would have legal repercussions in at least two countries, and possibly in every country in which Starbucks does business. I wouldn't sign the fucker either.

    Now let's take a look at some other documents I just googled up...

    http://www.coffee-tea-etc.com/coffee/faq [coffee-tea-etc.com]

    The cost associated with coffee is only 15c/lb, which is less than half a penny per cup of coffee.

    There's about 25 16oz (coffeeshop standard) cups of coffee per roasted pound. Three cents per cup would be $0.75/lb. Starbucks claims they pay over the fair trade price, which is under a buck and a half per pound.

  • Brilliant (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bahwi (43111) <incoming@jose[ ]uhlin.com ['phg' in gap]> on Tuesday January 02 2007, @06:01PM (#17436858) Homepage
    That's just awesome. It's just as accessible as the Oxfam, less boring, and more straightforward. You can repost it on MySpace or wherever you need to.

    Aside from that, regional trademarks == bad bad bad. Form Blue Mountain's wikipedia entry:
    "Jamaican Blue Mountain Coffee is protected worldwide as a certification trademark meaning that only coffee certified by the Coffee Industry Board of Jamaica can be labeled as such."

    So, say the Ethiopian Board of Coffee doesn't like a farmer, I mean hell, there's a lot of problems in that area, it'd be pretty easy to pick some farmers you don't like, whoever the new gov't is, and put a lot of people out of work.

    • Re:News For Nerds How??!! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @05:25PM (#17436480)
      Beacuse this would be a new use of the technology, rather than "hippies in Seattle march with signs, corporation issues press release denying charges"?
      • Anything that keeps hippies off my doorstep or street I'm for. At least the cities can save some money on cattle prods, rubber bullets and tear gas.

      • Just cause its not *quite* mountain dew... (Score:4, Funny)

        by Lanoitarus (732808) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @07:06PM (#17437532)
        ...doesnt mean that 90% of the readers of this site don't down plenty of this stuff anyway. Frankly, THIS nerd would be far more devastated by negative news about the availability of coffee than microsoft, google, or even *gasp* linux.

    • Re:News For Nerds How??!! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Run4yourlives (716310) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @05:50PM (#17436720)
      I'm only responding because you were modded insightful:

      This is news for nerds not because of what is happening, but because of HOW it's happening.

      Not only is Oxfam going directly to the internet to mount a campaign against a corporation (in and of itself a cool thing - proving yet a gain the power of the internet), the corporation responded in kind.

      This type of one to one presentation of views has never happened before in such a powerful way. It could herald a new method of consumer/producer interaction, which of course may spill into political spheres. All because of the internet.

      It is proof that the internet is radically changing the face of our entire society, so much so that we are only on the cusp of realizing what may happen. Geeky enough for you now?

    • Re:News For Nerds How??!! (Score:5, Funny)

      by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) on Tuesday January 02 2007, @07:16PM (#17437660) Journal
      I don't really see what this story has to do with news for nerds
      I'm going to get modded down for this but it's the honest truth and it's worth saying.

      Every culture and subculture has some form of 'machismo'. In the world at large, machismo mostly consists of its literal interpretation, ie. doing those things that you stereotypically associate with being male: ie. being physically fit, healthy and attractive, being able to bed large numbers of women, being able to tolerate large amounts of drink and so on. Nerds, on the other hand, are very poor at these things. But they still need some form of token machismo so they can show off to their peers. This manifests itself in a couple of different ways. The obvious one is showing off your technical ability, eg. by displaying arcane knowledge of poorly documented parts of your OS. And another is to show off your ability to tolerate caffeine. Just observe any group of nerds together and watch the endless stream of little geeky jokes displaying their insecurity about caffeine: "The day hasn't started until my fifth coffee", "I'm a machine to turn caffeine into code", "why would anyone drink decaf?", even clothing [thinkgeek.com] to show off ones's capability for caffeine intake. Nerds worry that if they don't make these little comments, their ability to tolerate caffeine will be doubted and they will be perceived as somehow inferior.

      And hence it's no surprise that Starbucks is an important part of geek culture.

    • yep (Score:3, Interesting)

      by BitterAndDrunk (799378)
      It's because they actually pay for benefits for their workers, even part time. Whole Foods suffers from the same markups.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.