Starbucks new instant coffee - ugh

[David M. Bueker]

Got a free sample & just tried it. It tastes like burned mud.

Surprise, surprise.

Got a free sample & just tried it. It tastes like burned mud.

That good?

Got a free sample & just tried it. It tastes like burned mud.

Cripes! Do I now need to go out and try burning some mud to figure out what this means? Nah, easier to go to my local *$ and try it for myself.

Mark Lipton

[Jenise]

There isn't, and will never be, good instant coffee.

[David M. Bueker]

There isn't, and will never be, good instant coffee.

Amen!

But for free I had to try it.

There isn't, and will never be, good instant coffee.

Amen!

But for free I had to try it.

Sounds like you should have insisted on payment...

Got a free sample & just tried it. It tastes like burned mud.

That sounds worse than even office coffee.

We used to go to Starbucks, because one of them in Redding has nice atmosphere. A very nice patio that gets morning sun and looks out over a pretty fountain with colorful plantings, and we can take our dog. He sleeps on our lap while we read the paper and enjoy the sun on our backs. The coffee is awful. Now that the locals have figured out how to compete, we go elsewhere. Instant coffee...why?

[David M. Bueker]

Instant coffee...why?

They are looking to snag additional market share.

Me - again only because it was free.

I'm one of the few on the forum who admits to liking and drinking Starbucks coffee.

That said, I think the instant coffee idea is one of the stupidest things they've done. Instant coffee totally negates what Starbucks has always positioned itself as and takes away whatever claim they had to making coffee the drink it is today (and to re-inventing coffee houses to what they are today).

It's Starbuck 'jumping the shark' as far as I'm concerned. The visionaries gave way to the corporatists; the corporatists have now given way to the harvesters.

I look for the steady and irrevocable decline of quality in the coffee (and the coffeeshops) as the next noticeable step. If you're pushing instant coffee, you're saying your brewed coffee doesn't really have to be all that good. Or all that fresh. Negates the reason anyone might have for going in to a Starbucks store.

I was given a free sample of the stuff a couple of days ago but have yet to re-constitute it.

I will say I have had instant coffee and liked it. In college, we used to take several tablespoons of Mexican Nescafe, dissolve them in a short glass of milk, and then stir in a bunch of sweetened condensed milk. It came out along the lines of Thai iced coffee, was very tasty in a milk-shaky sort of way, and packed a caffeine wallop.

There isn't, and will never be, good coffee.

Fixed it for ya.
Seriously, how can anything that smells as good as coffee taste so bleepin' awful? If it weren't for being addicted to the caffeine, I'd never touch the stuff.

Fixed it for ya.
Seriously, how can anything that smells as good as coffee taste so bleepin' awful? If it weren't for being addicted to the caffeine, I'd never touch the stuff.

Well you can develop a taste for something if the effects are worth it. Otherwise, no one would ever drink beer.

I'm one of the few on the forum who admits to liking and drinking Starbucks coffee.

That said, I think the instant coffee idea is one of the stupidest things they've done. Instant coffee totally negates what Starbucks has always positioned itself as and takes away whatever claim they had to making coffee the drink it is today (and to re-inventing coffee houses to what they are today).

It's Starbuck 'jumping the shark' as far as I'm concerned. The visionaries gave way to the corporatists; the corporatists have now given way to the harvesters.

I look for the steady and irrevocable decline of quality in the coffee (and the coffeeshops) as the next noticeable step. If you're pushing instant coffee, you're saying your brewed coffee doesn't really have to be all that good. Or all that fresh. Negates the reason anyone might have for going in to a Starbucks store.

I'm actually with you Hoke! That is, I don't have any exclusive or even constant loyalty to Starbucks per se but I am all for the "premium coffee" movement, which at least in theory they WERE helping to revive (or actually start, I dont know it had ever existed here previously).

I'll even go a step further (and snobbier perhaps) and insist that I can now only think of coffee in terms of espresso-based quality. I'm not trying to sound overly-ridiculous about it but its just simply a pure quality and enjoyment issue for me. Once you taste coffee the "right way" a la cappucino, latte, mocha its impossible (for me) to go back to dilute, watery, normal coffee (even if its good)! It's like getting a taste of filet one day and then trying to go back and convince yourself its delicious to just enjoy beef flavored soup broth or something.

For me there's no substitute for that aroma and the thick, viscous, rich, deep-roasted delights of the bean itself being extracted as real espresso. Mix it (if you prefer) with cream, milk, cocoa, etc and it's just a whole other seductive world. Nothing in drip or instant or any other form can touch that for me, coffee-wise. Much like hot chocolate or cocoa as well, I just MUCH prefer the hearty stuff not the watery or dilluted kind.

Of course the downside is that, practically speaking, an espresso maker in the house is not an easy option. You're almost forced to get them in the outside world. Thus I can understand how french presses, drips, instant etc serve their purpose to make a "coffee-like" product quickly and conveniantly. But personally I can't make myself enjoy any of those. I need it in espresso form or it just isn't "coffee" to me - it just isn't enjoyable.

So I'm with you on Starbucks (in theory). At least, burnt or not burnt, liked or not liked, too commercial or not commercial, at least they ATTEMPTED to truly make and push ESPRESSO based coffee into the forefront which I can only view as good (if the alternative was to remain drips and instants etc...). I guess, ideally, landing in Italy might be preferred choice #1 but we cant always end up there. At least Starbucks and other TRUE coffee houses were/are the closest available options (for those of us who like espresso-based coffee and not just coffee-water)...

Jeff

Would I be wrong in suggesting that Starbucks led the way in what I think of as the "American coffee revolution" but that today they have become the McDonald's of coffee?

Best
Rogov

[David M. Bueker]

Other than this whole instant coffee thing, I don't really think they are anything comparable to McDonald's. People may not like the roast level, but they are still making fresh coffee/coffee drinks, and as such are really no different than gazillions of little cafes all over the place in Europe. Not every espresso in Italy is delicious, and there's some pretty bad pastries in some of the quickie cafes in France.

I will be sad if the "real" coffee declines, as I enjoy going there.

There isn't, and will never be, good coffee.

Fixed it for ya.
Seriously, how can anything that smells as good as coffee taste so bleepin' awful? If it weren't for being addicted to the caffeine, I'd never touch the stuff.

Same with vanilla.

I didn't like coffee until my late 20s. After trying it various ways (sugar, cream, etc.), I discovered just plain joe was the path to enlightenment. Nowadays , we've also discovered that coffee is also good for you. And we all know that medicine has to taste bad in order to work.

burn it once - shame on you. burn it twice - more shame on you.

Other than this whole instant coffee thing, I don't really think they are anything comparable to McDonald's. People may not like the roast level, but they are still making fresh coffee/coffee drinks, and as such are really no different than gazillions of little cafes all over the place in Europe. Not every espresso in Italy is delicious, and there's some pretty bad pastries in some of the quickie cafes in France.

David, Hi....

The statistics vary from place to place but it seems safe to say that Starbucks now has somewhat more than 12,500 branches in some 38 different countries. One wonders - well, at least I wonder - if any chain of that enormity can produce coffee at the same high level that they did when they opened their first branch in Seattle.

As to the "gazillions" of little cafes all over the place in Europe, indeed not every one of those is good and as a certainty some of the pastries in quickie cafes can be pretty bad. But, an important but - some of those places serve coffee and pastries that have godlike qualities. On the other hand turn out a zillion burgers or a zillion cups of coffee and one wonders how much attention is paid to true quality.

Best
Rogov

Rogov
I'd tend to agree with your suggestion, though perhaps we have a different exposure to them in our home countries vs. the experience in the US or even the ones in Seattle. It was always said that Americans wouldn't recognise the UK McDonalds when compared to the wider choice of options they'd get at home.

Starbucks recently polled very low here in a taste test for coffee across chains - partly down to their large cups of froth typically having just a single shot of coffee. Caffe Nero did well and of the chains I'd say that on balance I'd agree, but they're not at the forefront of coffee-making either. My favourite place in town in the Market Stall that's linked to the "Little Red Roaster" on the edge of the city. Skilled and passionate - even opinionated. We had a good chat this week where the guy reckoned that Italy has fallen behind other nations in the last decade - not on espresso which he still rates them best, but he's a firm believer that all-round, NZ has the best coffee scene and Melbourne Australia is right up there as well. I'd agree with NZ being exceptional, but didn't have great coffee last time in Melbourne. I still rate Italy very highly indeed and indeed very much the culture of the local cafe as the constant companion to the day. For me Italy is still the king.

regards

Ian

Enough bitching already,you pay for the mud only, the burnt taste comes for free.

Coffee culture---along with the desire for and availability of high grade coffee---existed before Starbucks.

As with most super-successful companies (McDonald's included), Starbuck's didn't invent anything new; they simply created a tight, focused and extremely successful operation (and in the beginning, absolute and uncompromising quality was their strongest attribute) to deliver a product, then were equally focused on teaching people how to enjoy their product.

Prior to the Starbuck's march to ubiquity, coffee purveyors were around. But they were for geeks---people who had either been in Europe and knew the difference between quickly produce watery swill or bottom-of-the-pot sludge or...ugh...soulless percolator liquid.

I remember quite fondly in my college years at UWM, over on the East Side, amongst the book stores and head shops (early 70s), going to a small, select coffee seller, where you could get the whole beans, freshly roasted, and all the appurtenances (Melitta was the big player back then and there) to make fresh cone-drip coffee at home.

It was some (many) years later when I ended up in Seattle, and was taken to Pike Place Market, and stood in line in that tiny little closet store that was the original Starbucks. It helped, of course, that Starbucks began in what was very much a coffee-prone climate/region; it was often cool. wet and overcast, and coffee could be consumed with equanimity pretty much year round.

The difference with Starbucks though, was that Schulz (and others) saw the possibilities, and aggressively pushed the beverage they made. And with a stroke of genius, they understood that with Americans, it wouldn't be done with straight coffee alone---no matter how good it was--- but with a softened, toned down, milder, gentler and infinitely more acceptable concoction, not coffee---but coffee-flavored hot milk!

So Starbucks was essential in convincing America that they could turn an ordinary, mundane beverage into a luxury experience---a lifestyle enhancer----that not coincidentally gave you a small buzz. Empire,here we come.

Now they're going through what I think their final phase is before they transition to the next level, and become a mockery of what they pushed originally. They have----pardon the expression---milked the coffee phenomenon as much as they could. Now they are looking to be retail packagers, without any real center or focus, except for making money.

[Aside: some years later I sat on a panel at the Haas School of Business as a rep for successful entities from different parts of the business world. By coincidence I was sitting next to the rep from Starbucks. He went on about how they got to be successful selling coffee to America. Afterwards, I was speaking to him and I told him I knew the REAL story, and what they were really selling. Intrigued, he cocked his head, and asked me what that was. I said, "You guys talk about selling coffee. But your biggest sales item is milk. You're one of the most effective marketers of milk in the entire country." (I was smiling when I said it.) The Starbucks guy laughed deep and long and said, "You're right. And it has always puzzled me that more people haven't figured that out. We sell a lot of coffee----but we move a lot more milk than coffee. We're one of the biggest milk-users in the world now".]

Rogov
I'd tend to agree with your suggestion, though perhaps we have a different exposure to them in our home countries vs. the experience in the US or even the ones in Seattle. It was always said that Americans wouldn't recognise the UK McDonalds when compared to the wider choice of options they'd get at home.

Starbucks recently polled very low here in a taste test for coffee across chains - partly down to their large cups of froth typically having just a single shot of coffee. Caffe Nero did well and of the chains I'd say that on balance I'd agree, but they're not at the forefront of coffee-making either. My favourite place in town in the Market Stall that's linked to the "Little Red Roaster" on the edge of the city. Skilled and passionate - even opinionated. We had a good chat this week where the guy reckoned that Italy has fallen behind other nations in the last decade - not on espresso which he still rates them best, but he's a firm believer that all-round, NZ has the best coffee scene and Melbourne Australia is right up there as well. I'd agree with NZ being exceptional, but didn't have great coffee last time in Melbourne. I still rate Italy very highly indeed and indeed very much the culture of the local cafe as the constant companion to the day. For me Italy is still the king.

regards

Ian

Since I (sadly, sadly) don't get down to NZ to taste their coffee. I'll say unequivocally that Italy is still King.

And Illy, when I'm here in the US, is what reminds me of Italy. I loves my Illy, I do. Wish it wasn't so damned expensive, but that's the price of marketing and success.