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."
Probably a non story (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So, you worked for Starbuck's, eh? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
yep (Score:3, Interesting)
Did a little research for those who care (Score:5, Interesting)
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:
What, exactly, does "prompted protests" mean? It's a little further down.
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.
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...
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.
Re:What they should be saying (Score:2, Interesting)
That said, I prefer the underdogs, as long as they make good coffee.
Re:In other words: Oxfam just got own3d! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:So, you worked for Starbuck's, eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.slate.com/id/2133754/ [slate.com]
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...
Re:Starbucks is big and therefor evil (Score:3, Interesting)
Which begs the question, is Coke really in the big-bad-bin? This is the first I've heard of it. I mean, I've heard murmurs about unfair practices but nothing really big.
It also suggests the question, how much of the proceeds from each cup of McDonalds "coffee" goes to the farmer?
Re:In other words: Oxfam just got own3d! (Score:5, Interesting)
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:cry me a river (Score:3, Interesting)
1) You do realize that ( at least to my knowledge ) just about all Starbucks are franchises.
No, they're not. [mysitespace.com] It's the other way around - some Starbucks are franchises, like those in bookstores or in malls, but the rest of the stores aren't.
Triv
Why "fair trade" is a horrible concept (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:In other words: Oxfam just got own3d! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Starbucks QA (Score:5, Interesting)
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:News For Nerds How??!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:In other words: Oxfam just got own3d! (Score:4, Interesting)
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 lied. (Score:3, Interesting)
Furthermore, the guy conveniently omits that "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." (see here) [oxfamamerica.org] Why would Starbucks actively oppose the Ethiopian trademark application if they really wanted to help Ethiopian farmers?
All the talk about "we want the farmers to succeed, we built schools, we pay over commodity prices", while making up 90% of the video, is bullshit and completely besides the point. They don't care about that charity crap, they want hard and cold trademark agreements.
Starbucks does not have the power (Score:1, Interesting)
This is a good thing. What Starbucks is really afraid of is that once "trademarked", the corrupt Ethiopian government will then dilute the brands by selling beans from other regions marking them as being from a "premium region". They will milk the brands one at a time, and then rotate the good beans through various trade names to keep interest up. This, BTW, is what Cuba has done to their once great (now crap) cigar industry.
Starbucks has the proper solution to this problem, one which will be better for the farmers in the long run. Regional certification. Like Kona Coffee or Idaho Potatos. Regional production and quality standards must be met to bear the label. This encourages protection of the regional name by all parties, and discourages trademark trickery by a corrupt state.
Re:I hate to repeat myself but: (Score:2, Interesting)
As far as the gpl thing,
I disagree; I posted my comment because most of the +4 Insightful comments already present in the discussion were pro-starbucks and I thought I should inject some anti-corporate sentiment into it.