Starbucks pays more for coffee than other retailers

1-19-2007 @4:25PM Seth Wilson said... I think Starbucks coffee is terrible, im glad they are paying a fair proce for their coffee, but I have serious problems with their product, which has nothing to do with the size of their operation. I work in downtown Santa Cruz, a place which is almost rotten with coffee places.....after working in the same place I have tried all the coffee that is offered. It seems like Starbucks deliberately roast their coffee till it is past "dark" and edging on "burnt". My fear is that they do this to hide the fact that they mix in poor quality, or even spoiled beans into their mix. I can taste the sourness underneath the burnt flavor and it is not good. I find Peets coffee to be largely similiar. As for the frappacino, well who doesnt like coffee flavored milkshakes? The best places for coffee will always have 2 things, quality bean suppliers, and a brew bar, meaning your order of coffee is fresh brewed immediately...not sitting around in a too-hot coffee coffin of stainless steel. Blech!
Reply

1-19-2007 @4:48PM James said... As the first commenter on the linked article points out (albeit in somewhat hyperbolic fashion), these statistics are comparing apples to oranges. The Starbucks average of $1.42/lb is being compared to the average *commodity* price of coffee of $1.04/lb. But the commodity price includes everybody, like Folgers, and more importantly, includes robusta beans, which cost much less than the arabica beans Starbucks uses exclusively. In order to determine whether Starbucks is pressuring growers into accepting unduly low prices, you'd have to compare what Starbucks is paying *its growers* to what other purchasers are paying *those same growers*. If it's the same or higher, then Starbucks can actually make the claim being made here. But if Starbucks is paying *these particular growers* less than others pay them, then they are still using their market power to hurt growers.
Reply

1-19-2007 @6:30PM Cory said... I really think Starbucks is BAD coffee.....I live in a mid sized town in MI and we have a local coffee shop that does all of their own roasting "in house" so its all of 2 minutes from the roasting building to the shop where it is made. I also would like to agree with whomever stated Starbucks beans are burnt. I have noticed this as well. Its funny but as hard as this is to believe the local roasted coffee is actually cheaper than Starbucks and it tastes 500% better.
Reply

1-19-2007 @7:16PM calamari said... Some publication did a taste test and determined that Starbucks' coffee tastes too dark and bitter to most people *except* when it's in an Icky Coffee Drink. The coffee needs that oomph to stand up to the load of milk and flavorings, but not so much unique tang that it fights the flavorings.

This matches my experience -- coffee houses that make better coffee usually don't do so well on the occasions when one really needs that hit of eggnog latte.
Reply

1-20-2007 @10:31AM robyn m. said... #3 makes a good point, but there's also the problem that it is unlikely that Starbucks is paying their *growers* anything. Starbucks, like most coffee companies, get their coffees from a whole host of middlemen, not from the farmers themselves. As such, the price that the companies here pay has little to do with what the farmers make--usually it only results in the middlemen getting a fatter paycheck. Starbucks does offer a line of Fair-trade coffees, and other companies specialize in such, and those are purchased directly from the farmers. Fair-trade options make a much greater positive impact on growers than any changes in the standard purchasing mechanism can.
Reply

1-21-2007 @1:49PM Gina said... Starburnt's may pay more for good coffee, but they sure know how to butcher the flavor! Even if they would purchase the most expensive, exclusive coffee beans, I am quite sure they would not know what to do with them. If people like this "coffee" sludge, they really have NEVER tasted good/exquisite coffee in their lives!
Reply

1-31-2007 @4:02PM Scott B. said... I would like to comment on #6 and clarify some of the fuzzy information about Fair Trade coffees. While FairTrade coffee (and other FT products) are designed to pay the grower or manufacturer a fair price for their goods, it is not necesarily the case the the money goes directly to the farmer or manufacturer. Fair Trade is a brand name... yes, a brand name that is licensed by organizations like TransFair. All it means is some other organization set what they feel is a fair price for the product. It is my understanding that this money goes to the FT organization and then is dispersed to the farmer or manufacturer. The money, contrary to popular belief, DOES NOT go directly to the farmer. Also, once the price is set by the Fair Trade Organization, it does not fluctuate with the market (this is how growers can be protected from the volatility of a commodity such as coffee). BUT, if the price of the commodity goes up, the farmers do not see this increase and are "locked in" to one price. This is how I understand FT, I have tried to do research (very mininmal), but economic transparency of organizations like FT or TransFair, is hard to gain access to. Does anyone out there have more detailed info about this? It is really good for us as consumers to understand what we are really doing with our money and who is getting it. Thanks everyone!
Reply