Amusing image: 'Victrola Coffee Roasters saw the Starbucks people a lot more often."They spent the last 12 months in our store up on 15th [Avenue] with these obnoxious folders that said, 'Observation,' " said Victrola owner Dan Ollis.'

I'll go there right after I get done having a dinner at Applebee's with my high school football squad after losing the big game.

The employees would likely prefer that the paychecks said "Starbucks". Starbucks offers baristas health care and 401K benefits, [insert your independent cafe favored by anti-corporate hipsters] typically doesn't.

So it's bad that they listened, let's condemn them before they give it a go?

What I'd like to see them change are the enforced Stepford scripts the staff has to memorize ... no, in fact, for the 1,000 time, I do not want a receipt and yes that IS all....and as to how my weekend went, well, since you asked, I spent it at the cabin bemoaning the failure of social democracy in the USA and drinking a bottle of Jack Daniels and taking meth ...on and how're YOU doing this morning?

Do you have an alternative suggestion for Starbucks?

Perhaps revisions to their franchising policies?

"wah wah wah i hate capitalism" -- seattle hippies

fuck ya'll starbucks makes a good chai, but i guess it's hard to fuck up chai

@1 that's amazing. Given that Starbucks got to where they are today by "commoditizing" the third-place concept, it's not a good sign that their own people now have to take notes at a "real" coffee shop to figure out what one looks like.

I wonder how they'll do it. If they bring back the more manual espresso machines, hire baristas who can pull a good shot, and let them dress however they want, it can work.

@ 7, you couldn't be more wrong. Starbucks COMPLETELY fucked up chai when they started making it with water.

@4 - Where are you getting your data? Victrola, Vivace, and Vita certainly do. You're just making shit up because it sounds good.

Isn't free market capitalism grand!

Don't like Starbucks? Don't buy their product. Thread complete.

@11: Victrola, Vivace, and Vita are the premier brands in the US's premier coffee market. They are also fairly big operations, with multiple retail outlets, back-end roasting operations, and overseas buyers. If you think they are representative of your typical independent coffee shop, you need to get more experience working in a small retail business. And if you think that indpenpendent small retail businesses typically offer benefits packages comparable to big corporate operations, you need to get more experience in reality.

I heard that they laid off their entire barista staff from the 15th Ave location, and are making them reapply for their jobs. That doesn't sound very neighborly. Can anyone confirm?

Starbucks can call their stores whatever the hell they want, their coffee is still too strong, too harsh, and too expensive.
No thanks.

I think unless you just absolutely hate their coffee and are worried about getting duped, this shouldn't be a bad thing.

They are trying to make their stores fit into neighborhoods better and listening to customer complaints. I prefer other coffee shops to Starbucks but Starbucks isn't going away, so why complain about them redecorating.

The collective snoopiness of the neighborhood figured the bare bones of it out a while ago, and the Seattle Times kindly filled in all the details:

http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2009/0…

Just what Seattle needs: more poetry! Ugh.

It's amazing how much effort they will put into NOT MAKING THEIR COFFEE FUCKING DRINKABLE.

Nice logic. So Starbucks can only survive by removing its stores? I think you are confusing corporate survival with, um, anticorporatism.

I wish Vivace would open a store on 15th.

@18, don't worry. They'll do two readings and then quietly drop the idea when they realized it was better in concept than execution.

I find Constant's reaction to be odd. Starbucks was aware that people didn't like them because they stripped areas of character and replaced it with generic one-size-fits-all stores. They take steps to reverse this, and he complains? Seems silly. I mean, how else should they "address complaints that it's grown too big and too impersonal," aside from making efforts to be less obviously corporate in locations where it makes sense?

Imagine this: Starbucks closes it's 15th Ave store, and the space is leased by another new coffee chain that works hard to have each store fit well into the neighborhood while still remaining profitable. Slog would be filled with articles commending them for their corporate citizenship and goodwill to maintaining neighborhood vibes.

Starbucks buys more free trade and fair trade coffee then any other company in the world. They buy so much its not labeled most of the time. I appreciate that its not your neighborhood hangout. All they are trying to do is create a place for locals, which happens to serve Starbucks coffee. I understand it was roasted off the back end of the shuttle, but that's what sells. Remember black apron coffee's? People didn't buy them cause they were too expensive, but they offered real change for those who lived in coffee producing regions. In the end there is actually very little reason to dislike starbucks besides their corporate nature. it could always be more like Wal- Mart. then you would really bitch.

"The employees would likely prefer that the paychecks said "Starbucks". Starbucks offers baristas health care and 401K benefits, [insert your independent cafe favored by anti-corporate hipsters] typically doesn't." HAHAHA! Of course Starbucks offers benefits, if they actually give you a steady schedule so you work enough hours to get them! This is called localwashing people. If they didn't suck they wouldn't have to change their name to look like something they aren't.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles…
I'll take my money to places where my voice is relevant, where decisions are made by people in my community and where the coffee doesn't taste like it came out of a burnt toilet. kthxbai

@22 I think Paul will only be happy when Starbucks closes all but 10 of their locations (and Jeff Bezos starts selling books on the street with the Hare Krishnas)

Um, yeah, what the fuck with a business attempting to serve its customers better!

And David Wright is 100% correct. They probably pay better too.

@26 oops, meant 'all but 1.' don't know how that extra digit got in there.

@25 I'll take my money to places where my voice is relevant, where decisions are made by people in my community and where the coffee doesn't taste like it came out of a burnt toilet.

Aside from the last one I can't see why I should give a shit about having a voice or who makes the decisions. If they offer a product I like I'll buy from them, if not then I won't. It makes my life much easier and I don't have to waste my time obsessing over meaningless phrases.

What do you have against poetry readings?

Slog scooped by CHS this morning

What utter fucking bullshit. The folks that were objecting to the Starbucks on 15th closing down could get their fill at Victrola if all they cared about was pauncy high-end coffee. They needed a local social hub, and they found it in a place where arrogant hipsters dare not tread. If Starbucks is rebranding these shops to be "neighborhood" coffeeshops (i.e. attempting to siphon off the Victrola crowd), that could be eliminated under a wave of laptop typing bozos.

This farcical attempt to find "authenticity" is just grating.

wait, not really (why can't we delete comments now that we have logins?)

one more try: the new name was discussed on CHS a week ago

Phil.

This is a blog.

The whole POINT is to REACT to the news, not make it.

@27,

I've heard baristas complain that Starbucks customers don't tip well. That probably doesn't make up for the lack of benefits, but it's possible that baristas at smaller outfits ultimately take more money home.

It's amazing how much effort they will put into NOT MAKING THEIR COFFEE FUCKING DRINKABLE.

To be fair, most Starbucks customers don't care. So much milk and sugar are added to their coffee, they can't tell the difference. Although if Starbucks doesn't try to improve the quality even in Seattle, I don't know how well this reinvention is going to work.

My nieces love Starbucks.

But then they're Cali girls, and it's fashionable, just like seeing Harry Potter at the Premiere was.

Adapt. Or die.

I don't have anything to say, but I'm sure that I'm fucking right about it. Something about how Seattle used to be better before all those fucking hipsters from Bellevue messed it up. I'm not happy about this, that's for sure.

@25. The corporate headquarters are on 1st ave. Can't get anymore local that.

I think it's cheap that they took their name off the building so people who want to support a smaller business get tricked into going there. That is low. But otherwise I like the idea of their trying to have different locations have a different feel. That's neat. I like Starbucks chai (Tazo chai, whatever), I think it tastes better than Morning Glory and the other brands, and it'd be cool to be able to get that taste in a different environment.

I think it's fine. I like the fact that the revised U Village store is going after LEED certification, and I never did get why people hate Starbucks so much. They're trying to listen, and they're actually trying to work on sustainability, too.

Don't like it? Don't buy it.

I think it's cheap that they took their name off the building so people who want to support a smaller business get tricked into going there.

Tricked? I'm sorry, but why exactly is it their responsibility to tell you they're owned by Starbucks? Does that knowledge make the coffee taste any different?

Businesses act under aliases all the time.

I mean, you see "Victrola Coffee" and somewhere there's a registered pseudonym saying it's really John Q Public Esq and Jane Q Public III doing business under that name.

Dunderheaded, sure, if you walk through the door, past the facade, and see the same shitty green and black clad Starbucks workers serving the same burned low-grade coffee.

I can't get too angry, given it'll probably fail unless they do a terrific job of disguising not just every inch of their facade, but the quality of their drinks and food as well.

... sorry, the workers themselves shouldn't be called shitty. Most Starbucks workers are decent people. The uniforms and product, however....

This is similar to how the Rs wanted to remove political branding from the ballot because they knew their product wouldn't sell otherwise.

Dunderheaded, sure, if you walk through the door, past the facade, and see the same shitty green and black clad Starbucks workers serving the same burned low-grade coffee.

You're not talking about the quality of the coffee! You're talking about who owns it and making a value judgement from there. If I told you that it was owned by a Buddhist collective or run by blind Italian monks, you'd be shitting all over yourself regardless what the coffee tasted like when it finally opened.

48. You're talking to a man who thinks Starbucks coffee tastes like burnt shit. I think your audience is that way -------------------------->

The real problem here is that this is merely a cosmetic change; if the coffee is still going to taste like carbonized mouse turds then it's a pointless exercise.

And the reason millions of people drink $tarbucks$ is simply because most of them have never been exposed to anything better. I imagine when all you've had is Folgers $tarbucks$ probably seems pretty exotic by comparison.

Besides, from what I've observed, the typical $B patron adds so much crap to their drink order: milk, sugar, flavoring, whipped cream, et al, you probably could fill the rest of it with hot, liquefied mouse turds and most would never notice the difference anyway.

@50...:

At least half of all "gourmet" coffee out there does not taste up to par. I personally think Starbucks is just fine, not great. I think the biggest issue I have is that you & others pick out Starbucks as being horrible using language that is verbatim from the wannabe coffee gourmets who came before you. This makes me assume that you are regurgitating opinions, and that your basis for these opinions is in your attitude about Starbucks as a corporation, not as a coffeehouse. I could be wrong.

I don't really see how this move is "dunderheaded." You can call it "addressing concerns" or "taking advantage of complaints" (still not sure how one does that. Do enlighten us P.C.). Either way, there was an obvious problem with the brand, and they're addressing it. They survived an awfully long time on their supposedly horrid coffee - even in cities that are home to experts like COMTE - to have that be the only source of their woes.

I know it's cool to bag on Starbucks, but it's a business. Just like Apple. Just like VW. Just like the Stranger (although obviously your ability to tap into a huge and innovative growth concept in the way Starbucks did is absent).

@51 Not everyone $hares your tastes. $ome actually like their drinks. I mean all coffee tastes the $ame to me. I've had the good shit at Peet'$* or where ever and to me coffee is coffee.

*And lets be honest, every business cares about $$$

52. I think you're either on a crusade to pick a fight or you're a Starbucks employee... and not a barista, but a corporate drone from the 1st Avenue HQ. If you want to paint my opinion and others as anti-corporate bias by the neighborhood, then why does the Broadway/Republican location in the same neighborhood do well enough to survive?

Their locations mostly do great business, but not this one. Starbucks thinks it's because they didn't present the right facade. They don't understand that there not only are a lot of other coffee options nearby, and that the market for their product isn't weak because the marquee says Starbucks... but because their product is comparatively weak compared to what the neighborhood wants. If the marquee was costing them business from the hipsters due to image and anti-corporate bias, it would have killed the other Hill location too. The difference between the populace on Broadway and 15th isn't exactly Boston and Honolulu.

As for my tastes, I've walked into plenty of Starbucks and had one of their burnt drinks or breakfast sandwiches, often with family in Las Vegas where they don't really have any other option and acquired a taste for it as result. IMO the company's general image is fine. Hell, I think it's cool they offer their employees benefits. But I don't like their product. Your mileage may vary.

And what they're trying to do isn't going to work here. Painting over the store with different colors and logos while adding beer and wine (not exactly unique because half the coffeehouses in town, as well as the Hill, already do it... and it's not exactly a selling point since there's a BAR with a full selection of both next door) isn't really going to change their fortunes at the location.

They could have picked a better location where that approach would have played.

@54:

I'm glad you're such a world-weary critic of the business world. I'm not picking a fight, but I do find it interesting that on the occasions I disagree with Slog/Stranger authors, there are folks ready to go up in arms in defense. There IS a difference between 15th & Broadway. Character of the neighborhood, which Starbucks is working to capture. You point out the absurdity of your argument yourself - the 15th store HADN'T BEEN WORKING. THEY ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THE ELEMENTS THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM OTHER LOCATIONS - NEIGHBORHOOD (15th) VERSUS COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (Broadway). I'm sorry you don't like their coffee. You're obviously not representative of the coffee-buying population given their relative success.

And Boston v. Honolulu = 15th v. Broadway? Don't try and make absurd analogies. It only makes you look lame.

Oh, my bad. It should have read "Don't try and make absurd analogies and then try and attribute them to me." Dang Starbucks corporate drone typing class didn't include editing/proofing lessons.

Well, I'll restate it in all caps since that seems to be your desired method of communication: IT WON'T WORK, BECAUSE THE FACADE IS NOT THE PROBLEM.

The analogy (which was partially in jest but if you need to take it too seriously, that's on you) is fine. The neighborhood has a very similar cultural clientele along both drags, and if hipster hate was at play here, the Broadway location with full-on Starbucks logo and colors would have failed, and it hasn't.

Show me the last time you posted on Slog about a different subject. I don't recall your previous posts and I'm not convinced you're not a Starbucks drone.

@57:

Look up my posts yourself if you're so curious. Again, you're the one going after me as much as my statements.

And yeah, Broadway is not the same as 15th. I think I was clear. If you think all of Capitol Hill is always patronized solely by hipsters, I think you're the one who is out of touch with the neighborhood.

I would look them up, except they don't exist.

@36: Doesn't explain why ECB apparently got a bonus every time she used the word "scoop" in a post. God, I cringe just thinking about it.

@53: Then you are disqualified from continuing to have this conversation.

Seriously @53, any coffee roaster that produces a product that can't be consumed straight, whether as drip or espresso, isn't making a very good product, regardless of how popular it is. McDonald's is the most popular restaurant chain on the planet - but I seriously doubt any rational person would characterize their product as anything other than bland filler. Same with $B, IMO.

(Speaking of which, IIRC, didn't Consumer Reports rate McDonald's coffee as better than $tarbuck$ a couple of years back?)

In a city with an amazing array of exemplary local coffee roasters: Lighthouse, Zoka, 7 Roasters, D'Arte, Pioneer - just to name a handful off the top of my head (and not including my two favorite out-of-towners, Stumptown and Tony's), and a literal cornucopia of fine local coffee shops, I am simply flabberghasted that anyone in this town would bother to step foot inside a $tarbuck$, until I consider that for most of their customers the coffee is almost incidental to the "experience" and cache of the branding. Eh, whatever.

If you REALLY want to educate yourself as to what truly exceptional coffee should taste like, I highly recommend taking a trip down to Seattle Coffee Works at The Market. They carry selections from all the major local roasters, and you can purchase sample tastings for comparison. The staff is super-friendly, and will take the time to guide you into the best selections based on your personal taste preferences.

Comte, Starbucks gets lots of Seattle customers because Seattle, like every other American city, is populated more by people with average taste than by people who appreciate good food and drink.

That's what I'm sayin'! :)

we REALLY aren't gonna stand for anyone from denver thinking they have anything to weigh in on what pulling a good shot is. if you care about that, leave denver. otherwise, suck our elitist exhaust.

and i'm defintely not going to hear about my coffee from the insane clown posse.

@ 64, suck my asshole. I know 1000 times more about good coffee than you do, sucka. I learned it in Seattle (my home for 8 years! How long since you moved in from Wenatchee?) but I know my shit.

So long as these "pseudo"-Starbucks bring back the Chantico (Mexican drinking chocolate) I'll be happy.

No fair-trade organic chocolate drinks, no peace.