European Tribune

Display:
Macdonalds and Burger King, yeah, but Starbucks?  Sure, they serve milkshakes and stuff that are pretty bad, but their base product is the neutral social space they provide.  In most places where there are Starbucks, there aren't any alternatives, and where there are, the alternatives usually aren't as good.
by Zwackus on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 10:08:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wasn't one of the starbucks strategy to dump a lot of outlets in a single area to kill the existing competition ?

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Sat Oct 11th, 2008 at 10:34:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In a LOT of places that Starbucks built, there was no competition at all.

Much of Americana suburbia was completely lacking in both coffee establishments, and in the kind of semi-public lounge space that Starbucks provides.

The "Starbucks destroys local competition" argument comes very loudly from the few places in the US that actually had coffee shops.

And, from what I experienced in the Ann Arbor, MI area, one of the reasons for Starbuck's success was the fact that it made better coffee (at least by my tastes) and had a better social environment than the competition.

It wasn't a better financed but generally inferior competitor - it was a better financed and generally equivalent competitor.

by Zwackus on Sun Oct 12th, 2008 at 12:48:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series