Starbucks Responds In Kind To Oxfam YouTube Video 492
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."
Fair Trade coffee (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.ifat.org/furtherreading/libraryftgoods
Good for Starbucks (Score:5, Insightful)
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:News For Nerds How??!! (Score:5, Insightful)
How hard is it? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
What they should be saying (Score:3, Insightful)
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!!!
I buy fair-trade products too (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism [wikipedia.org]
Re:News For Nerds How??!! (Score:5, 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:Good for Starbucks (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Seems fair enough (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, what I'm far more concerned about is the other little known coffee companies. Starbucks coffee is expensive, and we're assured that's partly due to the costs being passed onto the coffee farmers. For the sake of argument let's assume that's true. Now, look at the coffee in your local supermarket, particularly your "value" Kwikkymart type supermarkets. In my local one I can get a 1KG tub of coffee for 1.99 and they sell like hotcakes. For those prices I really doubt much of my money (if I was cheap or tasteless enough to buy it) is filtering down to the farmers, if any at all, and I wonder what kind of money any of the related industries (transport, packaging etc) are getting. Who knows what those guys are getting away with?
Bear in mind, I'm also wondering just how much of that 1KG is actually coffee :)
Technicaly It Is (Score:4, Insightful)
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:News For Nerds How??!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How hard is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Brilliant (Score:3, Insightful)
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:I buy fair-trade products too (Score:3, Insightful)
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 supported by decree of government?
Re:No Good for Starbucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What they should be saying (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What they should be saying (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No Good for Starbucks (Score:4, Insightful)
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:In other words: Oxfam just got own3d! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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?
The issue isn't even about the farmers! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No Good for Starbucks (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
cry me a river (Score:2, Insightful)
2) What larger chain isn't pushing cards, don't like'em don't use'em, and tell your friends/relatives to not get them.
3) Sure only if you buy into the conformity - again don't go to Starbucks if you don't like them. Some people like to walk into a shop in Anytown USA and get a consistent brew of coffee and environment.
4) Again see 1 & 3, just go and support your own local shop with their 'art' or just go visit a local art gallery or artist run center.
5) Boo hoo cry me a river, don't like the price don't use the product, coffee isn't exactly an essential service you know.
6) Damn straight, and it's on the backs of you 'but they are an evil large chain and hurt the local shops and artists who I choose not to support' types.
Re:News For Nerds How??!! (Score:3, Insightful)
a.) Lots of nerds care about what happens to Starbucks.
b.) They used YouTube.
Slashdot isn't always going to have news you're interested in. Sorry.
Re:I buy fair-trade products too (Score:3, Insightful)
How?
The "infrastructure to produce efficiently" required investment, investment which apparently in the short term pays off, but which may not pay off in the future. Nothing practically prevents the "disadvantaged" party in a free trade system from not only duplicating, but leapfrogging any investment done by the other party. You will see the obvious truth in this by considering the automobile and consumer electronics industries of the US, Japan, and South Korea as case studies.
For a less macroscopic scenario, consider a lawyer who types at 150wpm and a secretary that types at 100wpm. The lawyer is certainly the better typist, and has every advantage over the secretary in terms of typing speed. One might think that in this case that the lawyer would do all her own typing, and the secretary might be unemployed. But of course this is not the case - the lawyer makes some money typing, but makes considerably more money litigating, such that it is worth her while to seek the assistance of a secretary. The lawyer and the secretary both benefit, irrespective of the resource, talent, and financial advantages the lawyer has.
It's not that the lawyer is good at litigating and the secretary is good at typing (Adam Smith's comparative advantage) -- in this case, the lawyer is good at both but litigating is a better expenditure of the fixed asset involved - time.
I don't think you mean to suggest that the lawyer should work less efficiently and not hire the secretary at all, citing some dubious ethical judgement that the secretary is "disadvantaged" and that the lawyer employing the secretary would thus be "exploitation". Why don't you ask the secretary about that?
I think people are confusing free market economies with capitalism (which is easy to do). Any system where by two parties mutually agree to trade without force or fraud is inherently just - if a particular transation were not mutually benefitial as determined by each party according to their own interests, the transaction would not take place.
The notion that you or I or anybody else knows what is in the best interest of someone besides us is the central and singular failure of all market-interventionist government policies, and why absolutely all such systems devolve into autocratic tyranny - they presuppose that an invidiual knows not what is best for herself, and therefore, should not be afforded invidiual decision making authority. Once a governance supposes that an individual cannot be trusted to make decisions in their own best interest, and that the government should take on responsibility for said decision making, freedom, both real and economic, effictively ceases to exist.
Re:What they should be saying (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate to repeat myself but: (Score:3, Insightful)
Step 2. Leverage my ability to never die and to farm the responsibilities for my actions out to replaceable 'employees'
Step 3. Become the dominant organisation to such an overwhelming extent that the majority of humans don't even consider the idea that my powers are illegitimate.
Step 4. profit!!! (no, really)
Re:I buy fair-trade products too (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft is the easiest example of a monopoly that exists only via a construct of government.
Re:In other words: Oxfam just got own3d! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:What they should be saying (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if someone gave me a Starbucks gift card, I'd thank them kindly then wait for an opportune moment to throw it away (or sell it to a Starbucks-frequenting friend). Just because someone gives you a gift doesn't mean you're compelled to use it. Hell, if they were a good enough friend, I might even point out the error of their ways - it's not that I have anything in particular against Starbucks, I just don't like their coffee.
5) Raise the prices on our addictive substance every six months
So buy it somewhere else. If enough people do that, it'll solve most of your other objections too.
Re:In other words: Oxfam just got own3d! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In other words: Oxfam just got own3d! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I buy fair-trade products too (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure - companies are a quasi-artificial construct of the government but are not a necessary feature for monopolies to exist.
Which argument?
Clearly I'm not advocating lawlessness - societies form and governments are created so that people can escape the state of fear and bring some amount of order where before there was none.
What I am advocating is that government should do only what is necessary and no more - limited government - because every expansion of government by definition is an erosion of some individual right. The US started with much fewer laws and regulations on the books than it has today. It wasn't because the founding fathers ran out of ink or parchment. I of course don't pretend to suggest that no new laws are ever needed, but I would suggest - and you'd probably agree with me - they we have a number of laws on the books which no individual citizen asked for, and which certainly do not prmote individual liberties or anything of the sort. For instance, what percentage of Americans, if taken to a direct vote, would have voted for the DMCA?
The cases of government abuse of power are many, as are the cases of legislation to benefit companies, monpoloies, or other special interests. Expansive government detests the inherent freedom that arises from free trade (and capitalism). When government manipulation of the market place produces some undesirable result, the failure is always attributed to capitalism by adherents of large government, when in fact, one can argue that government manipulation was wholly or significantly responsible for failure.
The question I am asking in the OP is - in cases of undesirable monopoly conditions in the US - are those an obvious result of the system of capitalism, or are they a peculiar result because of government intervention in that market. When you consider all of the back-door ways that governments regulate the market (i.e. building permits, licensing for hairdressers, etc), it's hard to suggest that we have a truly free-market economy.
You'll have to bear with me - I'm working my way through Milton Friedman. If you can save us both the argument and point me to some well-reasoned criticisms of Friedman's work (which presumably you base your disagreement with me on), I'd appreciate it.
Re:In other words: Oxfam just got own3d! (Score:5, Insightful)
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:3, Insightful)
Of course they know how not to, they simply chose to burn them as a matter of course. The reason? It's the only way to get a truly uniform coffee "flavor" across their entire chain. You can walk into a Starbucks anywhere and know what the coffee will taste like. In my opinion it tastes like shit, like all burned coffee does, but that isn't the point. The funny part is that for people for whom coffee == starbucks, they will come to think that burned crap is how coffee is supposed to taste, and may end up disliking other coffee.
Re:Starbucks QA (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, a lot of people who constantly go to Starbucks do it because it's the cool thing to do. They do it because it's what everyone else is doing since they don't want to be left out. Starbucks is more about "brand" than coffee anymore.
Re:In other words: Oxfam just got own3d! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:News For Nerds How??!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In other words: Oxfam just got own3d! (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Starbucks is big and therefor evil (Score:3, Insightful)
Do some digging on Coke in India (especially Kerala), and find out just how much damage they've done. Fertile ground has been turned into parched earth, groundwater has been contaminated across the country, and there's some question about the incidence of birth defects near the bottling plants. Unfortunately, it's far enough away from the Western World(tm), and also India's special interest groups tend to stray farther from the truth than they would here, so it's not the debacle it should be.
As an aside, Pepsi is right up there in bad behaviour as well. Both companies were temporarily banned from production in Kerala, in August of 2006, but the ban was overturned.
Re:In other words: Oxfam just got own3d! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Starbucks QA (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:In other words: Oxfam just got own3d! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:In other words: Oxfam just got own3d! (Score:1, Insightful)