The Slate wonders why the best cappuccino you can get is
not on the menu board at Starbucks. Their reasoning follows economic lines and boils down to a fairly old business
premise: charge whatever people are willing to pay and don't give them a cheaper option, lest they be inclined to take
it. This is sound business advice and surely part of the marketing strategy of Starbucks. But there is another reason
that they don't offer a short, 8-ounce cappuccino on their menu board: a lot of Starbucks customers don't know
what a cappuccino is.
Based on my own personal experience, combined with the input of several friends who are currently or have been baristas, there are many, many people who order "no-foam cappuccinos" at Starbucks. A cappuccino is espresso with foamy, steamed milk topping it off. It should have equal parts coffee, milk and foam. Eliminating the foam and demanding that it be filled with milk instead (because the inevitably irate customer is "getting ripped off!" by the lack of milk) makes the drink a latte. I wouldn't be surprised if, at least in some small way, Starbucks simply wanted to avoid the hassle of having yet another size to argue over. This really only applies to the cappuccino issue, of course. People will argue over any size, regardless of how small or large it is.











