Matt Murray writes to STARBUCKS GOSSIP: My name is Matt Murray and I am a communications specialist with Starbucks. You have a wonderful site which I visit at least once a day and I am always pleased to see your fair and balanced reporting about all aspects of Starbucks. The comments and discussions your posts inspire are wonderful and I always look forward to reading them.
On behalf of Starbucks, I wanted to reach out to you to clarify the Frappuccino information Starbucksgossip.com. On January 3, 2007, Mocha Frappuccino and Mocha Frappuccino Light blended coffee prices increased to the same prices as the Caramel Frappuccino blended coffee in all U.S. company-operated stores. This change better reflects the value of a Mocha beverage by placing it in the appropriate pricing tier with like beverages.
We regularly evaluate our pricing structure to ensure we are providing our customers with the best quality product and customer service at competitive prices. We recognize the impact this increase has on our customers. We appreciate our customers’ ongoing support and patronage, and we are committed to delivering the Starbucks Experience to them every day.
Why is it when they want to balance out pricing, they always raise one to meet the others rather than lower some to meet the one?
Strange isn't it that the "balance" is always in favor of a higher price.
Posted by: Logical | January 09, 2007 at 06:21 PM
poor mocha and moca light beverages were not feeling valued - perhaps now that they cost more we customers can value them at their "appropriate pricing tier".
Posted by: | January 09, 2007 at 08:59 PM
I wonder if this is for real. Aren't people suppose to send communications through an official press release, instead of the blog, no matter how good. We are definetely going to be running a check through the Beanbook.
Posted by: Boston Starbucks Rebel | January 09, 2007 at 09:25 PM
E-mail headers verify his identity.
Posted by: STARBUCKS GOSSIP webmaster | January 09, 2007 at 09:29 PM
Oh I'm fairly certain he was who he says he was. His preamble to the actual topic was certainly right on par with what I would expect. He is basically just quoting the information sent out earlier last month, while saying nice positive things to make everyone feel warm and huggy. *retch*
Posted by: Deusx | January 09, 2007 at 10:50 PM
Guess what nobody needs a frappuccino.
Posted by: just a barista | January 09, 2007 at 10:55 PM
"...I wanted to reach out to you..." - this is such SBUX-speak. You never hear someone say "I contacted him" or "I asked her" - it's always "I reached out to him/her." When I read that, I knew it was from someone at the SCC. This place drives me nuts sometimes.
P.S. Happy Green Apron Week :P
P.P.S. You forgot to italicize "Starbucks Experience." Legal will have a fit.
Posted by: SCC CubeDrone | January 10, 2007 at 12:48 AM
HAPPY GREEN APRON WEEK!
Is this official communication from Starbucks? No! Really?
No! I don't believe it.
I think it's just a bunch of people who work for Starbucks and really like it and read starbucksgossip.com regularly.
Posted by: James Stansfield | January 10, 2007 at 07:28 AM
Increased the value of Mocha drinks? HORSESHIT!!!! Their fancy rhetoric can't hide the fact that they are not making the most money on a high-volume drink. If they thought about increasing the value of satusfaction level of their customers more then their shareholders, I might have more respect for them. Go to hell, Matt.
Posted by: hbdinwid | January 10, 2007 at 08:24 AM
To be fair, I believe the mocha frappuccino used to come without whipped cream -- but about 3 years ago the default recipe changed and now it comes with whipped cream. So people do get an additional ingredient.
Leaving aside the price of dairy products, we all know what a pain it is to make whipped cream. And those dispensers and chargers are awfully expensive. A quick google brings up creamright.com and bestwhip.com, which shows just how expensive.
And we also know what a pain it is to make frappuccini. Anything to deter customers from ordering them is fine with me. Frankly, I'd prefer to see such prices rise, and prices of drip coffee fall. Even a latte should be cheaper than a cappuccino. You can make 10 lattes in the time it takes to make 1 bone-dry cappuccino. I would also raise the price of the eggnog latte sky high so that nobody orders it. The price of the idiotic non-fat eggnog latte should quintuple. I have no idea why we even offer that.
The corporate-speak in that statement is horrific, and one would hope a communications specialist would know better, but remember -- when you suck at work, they call it an "opportunity." So it ain't surprising.
Posted by: cornfrost | January 10, 2007 at 09:20 AM
That's just business. If they can charge more, they can. The price a company can charge for something has nothing to do with the cost of an item or what's "fair." If people are willing to pay it, that's what the market says the price should be. Quit complaining. If you don't like it, don't buy the drinks and the company might have to drop prices then.
Posted by: Mark Graban | January 10, 2007 at 10:27 AM
That's right, it's just business. Profitability is essential to the company's success. sbux will always look for ways to increase share prices in the market. if it's not the mocha or caramel, it would probably be vanilla or something. as long as there's a profit increase, share holders will be happy.
Posted by: [email protected] | January 10, 2007 at 10:56 AM
I guess mommy will have to give little Jimmy and Lucy more Starbucks money now...
Posted by: LG | January 10, 2007 at 12:52 PM
I am a very happy and satisfied Starbucks customer and frequent a bunch of southeast Michigan Starbucks locations and would be fine with any price increase the company feels is necessary. I drink lattes and wouldn't care if this particular drink received a price increase this year either. I am also thrilled that a Starbucks has opened on Mackinac Island, I hope it's not a rumor, the island needs a Starbucks desperately and business will be booming for sure in the summer. Thank you, Matt, for addressing this forum, I read this forum daily and love it!
Posted by: CDL Lover | January 10, 2007 at 01:03 PM
I'm a barista from California. The recent minimum wage increase legislation will create a litte issue in at least California stores. Baristas start out at slightly more than minimum, and minimum wage, as of January 1st, increased from 6.75-7.50 an hour. Start out baristas will make 7.70 an hour, and baristas of more than 6 months will make more. While this legislation is only occuring in California, it will have quite a significant impact on California stores, and I wouldn't be surprised if this price increase is meant to take care of the minimum lage increase.
Posted by: Jen | January 10, 2007 at 02:26 PM
[email protected] -- do I detect some sarcasm about shareholders? Starbucks has to keep profitable (or increase profits). If you can afford $4.50 for a drink, you can afford $4.70, most likely.
Posted by: Mark Graban | January 10, 2007 at 02:26 PM
Jen, barista in my store start at $9.00 per hour. Northern California.
Posted by: June | January 10, 2007 at 02:28 PM
It was made fairly clear to our region that a huge portion of the extra cash from all the price increases (drinks and pastries, etc) is funding all the pay increases from barista to DM. We got a huge market increase here.
Posted by: mgr | January 10, 2007 at 02:29 PM
"The corporate-speak in that statement is horrific, and one would hope a communications specialist would know better, but remember -- when you suck at work, they call it an "opportunity." So it ain't surprising." (Posted by: cornfrost; Jan 10, 2007 7:20:34 AM)
More dumb questions from the uninitiated (me): Do you folks REALLY talk that way to one another? If this fellow really is a communications specialist, I can only imagine that Sbux is either rife with nepotism, or 'Matt' is an "internal" communications specialist! No offense intended Matt (honestly), but as a member of the public at large, your Orwellian-speak is still ringing in my ears.
Posted by: Homebarista | January 10, 2007 at 02:36 PM
i think what surprises me most (and i'm surprised no one has said this) is the quick turn around from gossip to official SB communicator back to gossip - less than 2 days...
i knew they were watching, but wow! :)
now if they would only 'officially' answer some of the more pressing queries on the board... :)
(unions, frivolous lawsuits, trademark issues etc.. i mean, who cares about a .20c hike?!?)
Posted by: barockstar | January 10, 2007 at 02:59 PM
After thinking for awhile I have met Matt Ramsey although he probably doesn't remember me. I'm sorry about my earlier comment but it was at an Open Forum a few years ago. Also the only drinks that do not get whip cream are the coffee and espresso frappuccinos(r) blended beverages.
In my opinion, all the other frappuccinos(r) blended coffees and cremes except for the coffee frappuccino(r) blended coffee.
Posted by: Boston Starbucks Rebel | January 10, 2007 at 07:38 PM
Would everyone please remember that the world "frappuccino" is actually a registered trademark of the Starbucks Coffee Corporation. The correct way to call a beverage is
tall mocha frappuccino(r) blended coffee
tall vanilla bean frappuccino(r) blended creme
tall tangerine frappuccino(r) juice blend
And say thank you and make eye contact.
Posted by: Boston Starbucks Rebel | January 10, 2007 at 07:40 PM
If the customer only knew what was the process of Frappalini. Oh, my, god. a box product with coffee. yum,,, frankenstein like. enjoy customer..
Posted by: Steve | January 10, 2007 at 08:03 PM
Reagrding corporate speak, what do you expect? That they're going to post something on here in the same language that a lot of you use? Right. That would represent really well.
Posted by: seattle | January 11, 2007 at 12:06 AM
get. over. it.
its fat in a cup.
drink up!
Posted by: | January 11, 2007 at 01:06 AM
More like a "Crappucino." Oh wait, has $tarbucks registered that trademark, too. One day, the public will have the wool removed from their eyes and see how stupid they looked to pay these prices for slushies! All the clever marketing, and is it is clever, will be exposed for what it is, smoke and mirrors. Can't wait!
Posted by: Sleepless in Seattle | January 11, 2007 at 06:50 AM
boston - don't forget the straw! :)
Posted by: | January 11, 2007 at 09:46 AM
Why is it that when Starbucks raises a price they are evil?... inflation is happening all around us in real, and not so real (gas prices) ways. Milk is skyrocketing in the northeast... am I missing the MilkGossip.com board where we can go curse dairy farmers for trying to be profitable.
Posted by: Coffee Maker | January 11, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Why is it that we are conditioned to pay astronomical prices for alcoholic drinks, and yet people think that 4$ for a frappuchino is way too pricy? And why can't I have two boxes of tea for my markout instead of 1lb of coffee... same "price tier"
Posted by: Ben | January 11, 2007 at 11:59 AM
I'll give the customer a straw so they can suck it up, when we can't give them everything they desire, like my first-born child.
Posted by: Boston Starbucks Rebel | January 11, 2007 at 03:20 PM
ben: don't think about retail price value, think about quantity of drinks per issue.
a found of coffee will get you about 30 cups.
a box of tea give you 24 bags (which can easily be used twice).
so they are similar in quantity.
likewise starbucks could give us neither - but i don't really like that option! :)
Posted by: barockstar | January 11, 2007 at 04:13 PM
The idea that "if you don't buy it they will lower the price" really only works when they have to stock something special. Starbucks makes 80 different drinks from 3-5 products.
Posted by: | January 14, 2007 at 01:12 PM
Starbucks Frap's is basically a WOMAN's drink right? I've never seen a man drinking one. So it's the usual "PRICE GOUGING WOMEN" in my opinion. It's like Kahula drinks in the "tiny" bottle -- do you see men drinking them? Seldom. WOMEN consumers are being price-gouged everywhere and with most products and services (hair cuts, automotive repairs, etc).
So "Mr.Business Man" -- think once and a while about the single Mother's raising your children on poverty wages ONCE AND A WHILE. If you're proud of that -- so be it!
I will not be drinking Starbucks Frappuccino's anymore just like I don't touch Kahula tiny drinks either. Women are your MARKET focus!!!!
Contrary to popular belief, we are not stupid.
Posted by: Woman | May 14, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Maybe you can help me understand why a Grande drip is $2.01. Is that to encourage me to tip the underpaid highschooler barista the 99 cents? No thanks. I used to tip until this happened. I'd rather pay exact change and not tip than to feel like I'm being manipulated for a tip.
Posted by: Brian | December 26, 2007 at 03:43 PM
Is this email true?
Recently Marines in Iraq wrote to Starbucks because they wanted to let them know how much they liked their coffees and to request that they send some of it to the troops there.
Starbucks replied, telling the Marines thank you for their support of their business, but that Starbucks does not support the war, nor anyone in it, and that they would not send the troops their brand of coffee.
So as not to offend Starbucks, maybe we should not support them by buying any of their products! I feel we should get this out in the open. I know this war might not be very popular with some folks, but that doesn't mean we don't support the boys on the ground fighting
street-to-street and house-to-house.
If you feel the same as I do then pass this along, or you can discard it and no one will never know.
Thanks very much for your support. I know you'll all be there again when I deploy once more.
Semper Fidelis.
Sgt. Howard C. Wright
1st Force Recon Co
1st Plt PLT
Posted by: Mike Irick | December 27, 2007 at 08:14 AM
1) You're off-topic.
2) This has been WIDELY DEBUNKED, which you'd learn after a two-second Internet search. Type SNOPES, STARBUCKS WRIGHT if you want to know the truth.
3) I'm getting tired of seeing this email in my in-box. Please stop sending it.
Posted by: STARBUCKS GOSSIP webmaster | December 27, 2007 at 08:38 AM
Brian-
A grande drip is $2.01 based on your tax structure.
At my store, it is $2.00, while in a neighboring county with a lower tax rate is it $1.98.
Are you being manipulated for a tip? No, you are not.
It does sound, however, as though you are looking for a reason not to tip. That's fine, too.
Tipping is an option, and I don't even pay attention to tips unless they are handed directly to me. I'll do my best to make your experience a pleasant one, tip or not.
Posted by: sbuxnewbie | December 27, 2007 at 08:48 AM
Brian -- This topic is not about tipping. Do a search for the two threads devoted to tipping; they have about a thousand messages, so just about everything re tipping has already been covered.
Posted by: STARBUCKS GOSSIP webmaster | December 27, 2007 at 08:59 AM
Nose Share,care score launch solution away rock impact female only appoint advise bill to matter training boat deal tend bottle inside active contain left circumstance individual origin violence signal status pay will direct ourselves throw soft transport measure drive path between out match idea hit place acquire service soon general brief area acquire cause operation properly stage horse suffer production bed exactly vary food later lawyer track park building content mass implication comment recognition priority end reason surprise prime home variety restaurant illustrate sector building during spring young me admit belief weekend there into and realise room standard
Posted by: Working From Home | December 14, 2010 at 05:48 AM