I'm slowly losing my coffee choices.
Seattle's best bought by Starbucks
Coffee People bought by Starbucks
Torrefazione Italia bought by Starbucks
Diedrich Coffee bought by Starbucks
and now Peet's Coffee?
As a consumer I feel they are buying up my choices || Read Is Starbucks Buying Peet's Coffee?
Your choices weren't that great to begin with. Honestly, Starbucks is higher quality than any of those places. I drink the competition frequently, I'm rarely impressed. As a consumer, you always have a choice.
Posted by: coffeezz | March 16, 2011 at 11:18 AM
Anyone have any thoughts on yesterday and todays "area" conferenence calls? It seems as though Starbucks at large isn't doing as well as they say they are and are trying to blame it on the Store Managers.
For shame.
Posted by: Disgruntled SM | March 16, 2011 at 12:13 PM
I'm on vacation this week and heard nothing about the calls. Was this in the D/FW area as well?
Posted by: Carla | March 16, 2011 at 12:46 PM
Hey, Torrefazione was bought by SBC - not directly by Starbucks.
Of course, if 'bucks buys Vita or Vivace, I'm going to be PISSED.
Posted by: Randy | March 16, 2011 at 01:47 PM
Coffee People and Diedrichs were not bought by Starbucks. Diedrichs still owns the brand Coffee People.
Starbucks bought the rights to take over their spaces once thet closed their doors. Just correcting what everyone always gets wrong!!
Posted by: toby | March 16, 2011 at 02:28 PM
Let's hear more about these conference calls! Details please!
Posted by: Jim Romenesko | March 16, 2011 at 02:30 PM
Don't forget Coffee Connection in Boston way back around 1995 or so. And I would definitely contend that their coffee was on par with if not BETTER than Starbucks. George Howell was one of the major pioneers. (Also the source of the Frappucino name and overall concept.)
Posted by: Starbuckers, Inc. | March 16, 2011 at 02:52 PM
The conference calls are simply liked to profitability. Most stores in our area are not hitting controllable contribution therefore for the next three weeks, until the end of the Q we are having a spending freeze. No paid outs-meetings-extra admin-excessive bakery markouts-milk pars etc etc.
I have been through many of these. It goes all the way up to the SSC and will probably save us millions, and help us deliver good news to the street.
Posted by: Bold&Sleek | March 16, 2011 at 04:46 PM
Bold&Sleek- no paid outs- does that include the new mileage reimbursement?
Posted by: mornbecomes | March 16, 2011 at 05:56 PM
I hope to God that Starbucks does not buy Peets. I'd really hate to see another great company ruined by Howard and his team of boot licking flunkies!
Posted by: ncsm | March 16, 2011 at 09:35 PM
How is this bad? If Starbucks buys them and continues to operate Pete's and Pete's and Starbucks as Starbucks what difference does it make? It will add to Starbucks net worth and ideally push up the stock for shareholders. It's like Starbucks owning Seatle's Best...it has no effect on Starbucks aside from when a customer chooses to get coffee at SBC or Sbux we still reap the profit. Everything Starbucks does is now about the profit and shareholders first.
Posted by: Coffee Soldier | March 17, 2011 at 02:53 AM
@Disgruntled SM I was speaking with a SM yesterday about the "call" and labor is first, neg labor is the first vital key. No hiring whether your understaffed or not. It's time to tighten the belt again was the phrase used. Cut, Cut, Cut seems to be the motto. Unless it's China & then it's grow, grow, grow, more, more, more. Greed makes demons of man and what they will do to each other. Can't wait to see what kind of egomaniacal book this is going to be that the bee charmer wrote. Can't anyone say, Corporate narcissism?
Posted by: usorthem3 | March 17, 2011 at 05:56 AM
Makes since. A week of bad weather in the beginning of February caused so many stores to shut down early, open late, or not open at all for several days cut into a lot of revenue. Not one store in my district hit any targets for Totals Sales, CCs or TP. Not surprised that they now will want us to run again negative labor, cut all excess spending.
Posted by: Booger Red | March 17, 2011 at 06:09 AM
It's funny to read an article about Starbucks, because 99.9% of the comments rant about how much they hate Starbucks, the "burnt" coffee, etc...but SOMEONE is patronizing Starbucks...
Posted by: formermanager | March 17, 2011 at 06:17 AM
Please don't buy Peets!! I love Peets! It doesn't taste like my job! Major Dickinson's Blend is the highlight of my week.
Posted by: Spresso | March 17, 2011 at 09:55 AM
I remember the Coffee Connection. There were only 5 or 6 of them. I don't think Starbucks bought them out because of their coffee. They had great locations!
Posted by: spence | March 17, 2011 at 11:58 AM
I feel like I've seen this rumor before. oh yea, just down the page a bit
Posted by: really? | March 17, 2011 at 07:14 PM
Our area conference call was scheduled at 8am with no prior notice (at least no notice that trickled down to us SMs). Before I left the call early to deal with the line out the door (literally, our store is laid out funky and 8 people = out the door), it was pretty much just our RD to telling us to run our store the way we're supposed to anyway. Stop overtime! Stop over ordering! Stop excess markouts! Establish pars so you dont have to go buy milk!! SHOCKING STUFF! It seemed very knee-jerk reactionary to drag all the SMs onto a conference call rather then have DMs individually look at store P&Ls and determine store specific plans of action for increasing profitibility. When we heard 8am all region conference call the night before, we thought they were announcing some major merger or buyout or something before the news hit the media. Overall; lame.
Posted by: Just another SM | March 17, 2011 at 11:16 PM
There were at least 20 Coffee Connections in the Boston area. Not a HUGE company, no, but much bigger than 5 or 6. I worked there for 3 years (the store on Newbury Street) and first became a Starbucks employee somewhat against my will when Starbucks acquired us. (Yes, I could have quit, but we were originally told nothing would really change.)
And I still miss the actual coffee desperately. Maybe that wasn't Howard's primary reason - I think it was more about overall competition - but it really was that good.
Posted by: Starbuckers, Inc. | March 18, 2011 at 04:29 PM
ok... this comes from the heart, not from a place of Starbucks hate. Triple Tall Americano pit against Triple Tall Americano... Peet's wins hands down. They just have better coffee because they don't use the auto,push-button, don't pay attention to what you are doing espresso machines...
If they buy Peets, it will be a sad day because they will ruin it the way that Torrefazione was ruined when they acquired that brand with the Seattle Coffee Company purchase. They'll keep the presence in the grocery stores and slowly "operationalize" the Peet's stores to fit with the Starbucks way of running business. They're just buying the brand, they're not buying a customer base, because that will go bye-bye when Peet's customers see this go through. One of a Peet's customer's main objectives for buying is "It's Not Starbucks"...
On a positive note, this is great for my shares...
Posted by: The Ghost of Pat Nerr | March 19, 2011 at 04:55 AM
@coffeezz — So wrong. Starbucks higher quality than Peets?
Peets has better beans, and staffs their stores with people who can pull an excellent shot. (The introduction of super automatics to Starbucks stores improved consistency at the expense of quality.)
Posted by: Jim | March 19, 2011 at 09:38 AM
thank you. i love to read this type of information posts. again thank you...
Posted by: kiralık devremülkler | March 19, 2011 at 11:58 AM
Peets is the only store brand we buy, or we buy local beans.I am a former SB employee and still like SB coffee but Peets is best for my home brewing.
Posted by: FormerSBUXgal | March 19, 2011 at 01:06 PM
I'm 99% sure Diedrich and Coffee People are actually owned by Green Mountain, after Peet's lost a bidding war.
For those of you who haven't been to a Peet's store, in a lot of ways it's still what Starbucks was about 20 years ago -- whole beans are in bins and delivered to stores regularly from roasting centers. When you buy a pound of beans from Peet's it's usually going to be roasted within the last couple of weeks; they're often at least as fresh as the "boutique" roaster closest to me (Barefoot Coffee in Santa Clara). This really does make a difference. I like Starbucks well enough, but you can tell their beans aren't usually as fresh. (And the way Starbucks has handled the Clover and the "small batch" beans they were supposed to be roasting for them has been a heck of a disappointment, but that's another rant.)
Having said that, though, anyone who thinks Starbucks over-roasts their beans is going to hate Peet's. :)
Posted by: Watts | March 20, 2011 at 11:25 PM
Schultz has no innovative extinct. All he knows about is marketing to middle brow sensibilities. He destroyed Starbuck's individuality, squashed Coffee Connection and now that familiar hemmorrhoidal itch acting up again is after Peet's. somebody put him out of his misery.
Posted by: jerry weiner | April 07, 2011 at 07:27 AM
Peet's and Starbucks are actually related in terms of how the latter was founded. Peet's loyalists should learn a bit about the history involved before everybody goes berzerk.
Posted by: eid201 | April 08, 2011 at 03:33 PM
Schultz should go back to peddling plastics. He can't do much damage there.Starbucks was a credible roaster until Schultz got his oafish mitts on it.
Posted by: Yehuda | April 10, 2011 at 11:39 AM