The owners of Cold Coffee America claim that they got the OK to peddle "Starbucks Refreshment Center" vending machines -- then the permission was taken back. They sued and the case goes to trial next week. This one will be interesting to watch. Read "Local man suing Starbucks and PepsiCo"
July 28, 2009
http://tinyurl.com/kkxdwx
he did in fact work for NACP... and left to go to Pepsi Bottling in March 2009...
I wonder if a rogue leader who was interested in furthering his career made a decision that was over his role...
should be interesting...
Posted by: Starbies | July 28, 2009 at 03:57 PM
Starbies, that sounds plausible. The vending guys have letters saying they had permission to use the Starbucks logo. It seems as though they have a valid case.
Posted by: drive | July 28, 2009 at 04:33 PM
Gee. Why do I have a problem believing that Starbucks told a couple people, "Sure. Go ahead. Use our logo. Starbucks would be thrilled to sell coffee in a cup through a vending machine."
I don't think so.
Posted by: spence | July 28, 2009 at 06:00 PM
spence
i wouldn't put that past them...they have been pretty desperate for sales!
Posted by: brown dot | July 28, 2009 at 06:02 PM
This is B O G U S.
Posted by: Georgia Latte | July 28, 2009 at 06:50 PM
Brown Dot, Starbucks is doing everything it can to become America's favorite again . . . but do you really think they would approve vending machine coffee? Seriously. Doesn't that sound just a little crazy? Also, Pepsi has access to half the vending machines in the country. They wouldn't consider a teensy little vending company.
Let's not forget that these people aren't suing for slander. They are suing for tens of millions of dollars.
Posted by: spence | July 28, 2009 at 06:52 PM
I hope he wins because PEPSI killed Micheal Jackson and BurnT his head back in the day, Starbucks, Well we all know how they do!
Posted by: Billy-Jean | July 28, 2009 at 07:27 PM
The burnt head just melted some of the plastic in Jacksons cartoon like face. Improved his looks.
Posted by: Thriller | July 28, 2009 at 08:00 PM
@ spence - once upon a time i thought that starbucks would never touch the instant coffee market. i also once thought that laying off hundreds of workers could never be an opportunity explored after what happened to howard's father. i was told that a "pro partner" company cutting benefits could NEVER happen either, no matter the economic condition. are you tracking with me? i would make sure you bring change for the frappuccino machine...
Posted by: burned bean | July 28, 2009 at 08:15 PM
Burned Bean,
I hear you. The Instant Coffee Remark hit home big time. Never in a million years. . .
But but but the Via really is the best instant out there even though it's instant. Vender machine coffee though?
Whether these two guys are trying to settle out of court for retirement money or whether they are legit, at least we aren't going to sell gas station lattes.
Posted by: spence | July 28, 2009 at 08:22 PM
For those of you with lower numbers, it was only a few years ago that we would have read something like this and laughed. And laughed.
And now we wonder.
Posted by: spence | July 28, 2009 at 08:24 PM
i would make sure you bring change for the frappuccino machine...
Change? Bottled frappucinos easy top the $2 pricetag. Better bring your credit card.
Vender machine coffee though?
Read the article. It's pretty obvious they were planning to sell the bottled fraps and the canned doubleshots. The name of the company is "Cold Coffee".
Posted by: Transatlantic | July 28, 2009 at 08:39 PM
i don't believe it was "vending machine coffee". it was canned and bottled starbucks/pepsi products. bottled frappucinos, cans of doubleshots, iced coffee,etc. sounds to me like the guy approved it then others were opposed to it and removed permission.
Posted by: jabanga | July 28, 2009 at 09:41 PM
To me, the real key fact of this article doesn't come until the end: Two original defendants in the case, the Pepsi Bottling Group and Hector Benavides, the Denver-based business development manager for the bottling group, have already settled with Cold Coffee America for an undisclosed sum. (Emphasis added)
If Pepsi would rather settle this than fight it, what are the odds it's not a legitimate case?
Posted by: Beantown Barista | July 28, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Starbucks chocolate got pulled, too. Hershey's claims it fell way below expectations. Wonder if SBUX will sue them?
Posted by: Jim C | July 29, 2009 at 01:32 AM
Spence - they /do/ sell their coffee in vending machines. One of the 'we proudly brew' licensing operations for offices and whatnot is a vending machine.
Posted by: Sedg | July 29, 2009 at 03:38 AM
The Starbucks chocolate was disgusting. I tried 2 different kinds and it was not good!
Posted by: Georgia Latte | July 29, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Beantown Barista the key part in your quote is the undisclosed amount of the settlement. Pepsi could have thrown 500k (though we will never exactly how much) at these guys who know they don't have a real case and they would have jumped at the chance. For a large corporation 500k is not that much for a legal case and probably saved them money associated with taking this frivolous thing to court.
Posted by: mel | July 29, 2009 at 10:13 AM
And it seems they've got lawyers who say they DO have a strong case.
"Letters that Eckles sent to Cold Coffee’s vending machine manufacturer, giving clearance to use the corporations’ logos, are included as evidence in the case."
Yep, that could be painful for sbux. According to the story it seems like Creswell and Degesualdo did a lot of prep work, invested a lot of time and money to try to get this off the ground, even sold distributorships and started a manufacturing process on the vending machines. Of course it's fair they should be compensated if someone backed out of an agreement after all their work and expense. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out.
Funny thing, I think sbux vending machines of cold beverages is a brilliant idea. A cold vending machine plastered with sbux logo? Selling exclusively sbux cold beverages? I know I'd have a difficult time walking past that without stopping to take a look at what's available.
Posted by: StLouieDrip | July 29, 2009 at 02:45 PM
Personally, I love the little canned Starbucks doubleshots. They make a perfect wake up drink at 10pm when I'm crashing but want to stay awake.
Posted by: spence | July 29, 2009 at 10:43 PM
That is because Starbucks and PePsi, are planning something bigger, Starbux's plans on selling off the company to Pepsi when the stock reaches 20.00 to 25.00 a share.
that is why Howard came back to sell off.
he doesn't need the company anymore.
just you wait and see.
they also plan on selling Franchise's.
that way Starbux and pull out of it's hole, they have cut most of the part time help
you have to work 30+ hour to get the Bennie's, they are thinning the heard so fast Managers are jumping ship.
You read it here first, just wait and see.
how does stock go from 13.50 to 17.25 in just one day, someone is playing with the number's.
GE stock is better than Starbucks any day.
why would some stock pusher on TV state that Starbuck's is a great company to have if he wasn't getting paid off....
Posted by: just wait and see | July 29, 2009 at 11:09 PM
This is proof positive that Starbucks is nothing more than profiteering company built on squashing everything in their path...including even those that would appear to be adding to their botomline, as in this case. It's extremely disturbing to think that a company with the money, branding & power that Starbucks represents has no cap on their greed...even to the point they will run over their own hired agents. Chances are once they saw what these vending locaters could do to lift their business, their greed kicked in & decided they could make even more by handling their vending themselves. Is there anyone or a government agency that can keep a company like this in check to protect people from being swallowed whole by this power mad Franchise?
Bay Area
Posted by: bay area | July 31, 2009 at 09:07 PM