swagv

Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
comments4
  • Positive ratings 0
  • Negative ratings 0
  • Net rating 0
Filter comments by:
Highest rated Latest comments
Or filter by symbol:

Latest Comments
4 Comments

    • Mon Aug 18th 14:29 PM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Where Starbucks Went Wrong
      When Peet's Coffee & Tea, Starbucks' initial mentor, posted a 59% increase in Q2 profits three weeks ago, you knew that the Emperor was exposed for its nakedness.

      No: it's not high prices (Peet's charges about as much). It's not gas prices or food prices making people tighten their belts.

      Starbucks, it's YOU.
      View article »
    • Thu Jul 19th 00:49 AM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Why Starbucks is Bigger Than Just Coffee
      Excuse me, but did I just stumble into a Starbucks investor relations conference?

      Sorry for the intrusion...
      View article »
    • Thu Mar 1st 22:40 PM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Supersize that Latte? McDonald's to Offer Upscale Coffee Drinks
      Shot across the bow? McDonald's executives have exhumed the McCafé corpse no fewer than 3-4 times since 2001. This idea is as old as MacGuyver. And each time, Frankenstein dies a horrible death no matter how wishful the thinking that "things will be different this time!" The only difference is it's the same failed idea, repackaged in their franchise stores instead of under the McCafé banner.

      They have to prove the concept works once, and other than with marginal results in Ireland, before anyone can take them seriously in this area. Otherwise, this is just the ego trip that won't die -- McDonald's version of Sony's Mini-Disc.
      View article »
    • Wed Dec 27th 15:04 PM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Is Starbucks the Victim of a Coffee Mugging by Oxfam?
      Ahhhh, the answer is "no"?!?

      Fair Trade was devised by people who wanted to counter the price squeeze of coffee farmers at the bottom of the chain while retailers profited handsomely with huge margins. Essentially, Starbucks was one of the reasons why Fair Trade coffee came about. Wisely, they saw the opportunity and co-opted it, and now boast their Fair Tradeness as a badge of honor -- in a little smoke and mirrors to deny their prior practices that lead to its creation. So Starbucks is hardly the victim here.

      Same goes for the Oxfam case. While I certainly would question the transparency of Ethiopia and the hands over which revenues would flow in that country, it's a bit disingenous to suggest that Ethiopian growers don't deserve protections we afford other food & drink producers around the world because they happen to be unlucky enough to live under problematic government leadership.

      I think the most culpable act that Starbucks did surround this was, first of all, denying that they were behind the National Coffee Associations' veto on the measure. And now they've come back front and center publicly stating they were against Ethiopian certification. Talk about speaking out of both corners of your mouth.

      I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that Starbucks is some bloodthirsty exploitation machine, the way that Nike has been portrayed. However, like Disney, they profit handsomely from a Potemkin village of ethical propriety when behind the scenes they are no better -- or worse -- than any other profit-making corporation. So calling Starbucks the victim of a mugging is a bit falling for the bait. You should know better.
      View article »