just about all Starbucks are franchises.
Starbucks does not franchise. In instances where they want a presence but can't because a master concessionaire owns the rights (your friendly neighborhood international airport is an example) they will license the name and concept, and we're still not talking about independent businessmen here (unless you count companies like HMS Host or Albertson's as small businesses).
it sucks that some very good and unique coffee shops go under because Starbucks moves into the neighborhood
Does this actually happen? I've seen very little to suggest that the arrival of a Starbucks drives cafes out of business, but rather the Green Mermaid comes in with the education and advertising and actually defines a market segment that smaller businesses offering better product can build upon.
Admittedly, I'm basing this on my own casual reading and experience. I've been flipping through Google News to find the few articles I've read recently that are packed with quotes from independent operators stating what I did in the previous paragraph. Alas, I've been up for way too long due to work issues and my Google-fu is weak.
One thing I do know from personal experience when I lived in the Bay Area was that one local cafe owner in my neighborhood shrieked a blue streak about a Starbucks down the street eventually putting her little operation out of business. Oh, the unfairness! Small mom-n-pop pushed out by the corporate Satan!
Never mind the fact that her cafe was often filthy, filled with ancient pastries and served cups with the weakest shot pulls anywhere. But remembering that, it's made me wonder if perhaps those small cafes that went out of business had bigger problems than a Starbucks opening up around the corner?
don't go to Starbucks if you don't like them
But... but... what will we rage against then? :)
