Starbucks new instant coffee - ugh

Just gave my free packet of Starbuck's instant a try. Best I can say for it is that it dissolved very completely in a cup of hot water. Other than that, it's bad stuff. Mexican Nescafe is way better.

I predict this will not catch on.

That said, I think the instant coffee idea is one of the stupidest things they've done.

I think this is on the mark. Setting aside whether Starbucks coffee is good or not, I think Starbucks will come to regret this move. In an effort to promote the new instant coffee, I've seen various Starbucks officials quoted to the effect they've been substituting the instant for their regular coffee in tests and people didn't notice the difference. Reminds me of those old Folgers TV commercials, the one where they replace the regular coffee with Folgers at swanky restaurants. Of course, the Starbucks spin is that the test results mean they're setting a new standard for instant coffee; it's so good it can be mistaken for fresh brewed. But the opposite interpretation is equally valid, that their regular coffee is just as bad as instant. I have the feeling the second version is more likely to stick. I think Starbucks is taking a huge risk with their brand.

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.

I actually agree with this as well. McDonalds is the place I go to the most for "conveniant quality coffee" and it's surprisingly good/consistent! The ironic thing though is I really just think they are "starbuck's replacement" nowadays, at least in their market approach. It's a lot like the premium chocolate movement that has taken over this decade. More and more places are carrying them. Now Hershey's is doing them and "quality chocolate" is now an everyday trendy item. I think all these fast food chains are just logically looking at what sells and are saying, "there's no reason we can't make and sell premium roast coffees, at least equal to what starbucks was doing perhaps. And even cheaper!"

But you're right, in McDonalds case, only IF I get the premium based kind (cappucino,hot mocha) I find them quite fresh and perfectly delicious (espresso-like)! Particularly for a fast food coffee! It's at least the best "everyday coffee" I've come across WITHOUT actually going to a true coffee/espresso house which, obviously aren't around at every turn like the good ole golden arches are

I'm still reserving Italy as my first choice though! I agree that even espresso can be made "bad"(even there I'm sure). It's always a shot by shot basis all the time. But I'd still prefer to take my chances there, if it were a practical reality

My defense of Starbucks isn't so much that they are incapable of making a bad cup or that others don't have a right to find them poor tasting or burnt but just that at least they were responsible for commercially communicating that "espresso is the way to go, it is the real stuff, the coffee-water that exists in drips/instants is not what you have to settle for" mentality. Just that in itself (to me) is a good/true thing. Of course I agree that's just the first and most important step. If you destroy or burn the espresso then I guess you're only enjoying a "a bad but at least espresso-based coffee experience". But I think the key word in that phrase is still the "espresso-based" term. I'll always, personally, take the risk of true espresso that could always be a subpar and less than pleasing cup over good but water-based regular coffee. Perhaps that's silly but I'm just a much bigger fan of the thick stuff. The water based coffees just can't compare for me at all...

Jeff

That said, I think the instant coffee idea is one of the stupidest things they've done.

I think this is on the mark. Setting aside whether Starbucks coffee is good or not, I think Starbucks will come to regret this move. In an effort to promote the new instant coffee, I've seen various Starbucks officials quoted to the effect they've been substituting the instant for their regular coffee in tests and people didn't notice the difference. Reminds me of those old Folgers TV commercials, the one where they replace the regular coffee with Folgers at swanky restaurants. Of course, the Starbucks spin is that the test results mean they're setting a new standard for instant coffee; it's so good it can be mistaken for fresh brewed. But the opposite interpretation is equally valid, that their regular coffee is just as bad as instant. I have the feeling the second version is more likely to stick. I think Starbucks is taking a huge risk with their brand.

I agree as well. I don't get it. I can't think of a quicker way to destroy the very INITIAL idea/concept/truth you started with. If you even halfway believed in the "espresso is the REAL coffee" approach the polar opposite mentality is to do instant coffee!

I guess it just shows that in business you do what you have to do first. Your beliefs and philosophy can always take a back seat, if not go right out the window I guess...

Oh well...

I guess they're far from alone. Join the instant and drip crowd! There's definitely always room for more! Now we simply have one less espresso-based option once again (even if some found it a poor or overly roasted option). I guess somehow instant is the "new espresso" in their philosophy??? As an espresso lover I find this rather cute. Of course by cute I mean awfully sad! But I'm sure life will go on...

Jeff

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.

Damn tootin', Hoke. As I've mentioned here before, the late Albert Peet deserves much of the recognition for the revival of coffee culture in the US. It's no coincidence that two of the founders of Starbucks had worked at Peet's and that they later bought the business from Mr. Peet after selling Starbucks out to Schultz. Of course, coffee culture in the US dates back before the founding of the Republic. Indeed, many of the Founding Fathers hatched their plans for a new republic in the coffeehouses of Philadelphia. As I'm sure that you know, it was the privations of WW I and WW II that led to a loss of appreciation for coffee (along with so many other things that have since been rediscovered to great ballyhoo). Can you think of any other reason why a sane person would drink Postum other than lack of any alternative?

I am another person who drinks Starbucks coffee, albeit only when traveling and where a viable alternative exists. To those who decry the quality of Starbucks coffee, I simply point back to the not-so-distant era of percolator coffee to illustrate my point.

Mark Lipton

Mark, as a child of the deep South, and a person of "a certain age", I had quite a few relatives who drank chicory coffee, which dates back to the Civil War era. Amazing what adversity can foster, and can make ordinary.

You can still find it today, and I suppose it's okay to tourists who come across it in N'Awlins and think it quaint. But I'm also pretty sure that the tourists who buy a can and take it home with them still have that can in their pantry years later...if they haven't already thrown it away almost unused. It's foul and bitter stuff.

Also had coffee with roast grains added. Ukh.

And as a military dependent, then a stint in the military, I suffered through enough foul, stale, burned, and old coffee from never-cleaned urns to become an expert on the stuff.

Then, once you do get the good stuff, it is such a revelation you can't ever be satisfied with less.

Now there are local roasters everywhere you look, and it's a good thing. It's only every now and then I will come across some bland, insipid, watery thin brew---and when I do, it's a big surprise.

Was in a place in Talent (Rogue Valley) not long ago and had their coffee. It was...okay. So I asked for a mug of coffee with a shot of espresso in it. YES!!!

I will confess to having a small bottle of ground espresso I picked up in Italy, to use for sprinkling on certain foods, which I will occasionally, in desperation, make a cuppa from.

I'll also say that, here in the US of A, the best---hands down, the best---coffee I've had lately is from my friend Jason Brandt Lewis! He's the best barista I know. In a lurch, our fall back is the original Peets down the hill though.

[Robin Garr]

But for free I had to try it.

Interesting! If they were offering free punches in the nose, would you feel obliged to try one? Just askin' ...

It tastes like burned mud.

So, apparently it tastes just like what they brew in their stores...

Amen.

Mark, as a child of the deep South, and a person of "a certain age", I had quite a few relatives who drank chicory coffee, which dates back to the Civil War era. Amazing what adversity can foster, and can make ordinary.

Heh. On my first visit to Paris in '68, it was not uncommon to encounter chicory-infused coffee in the sorts of low-cost pensions where we were staying, likely for similar historical reasons. And then there was Choc Full o' Nuts in NYC...

And as a military dependent, then a stint in the military, I suffered through enough foul, stale, burned, and old coffee from never-cleaned urns to become an expert on the stuff.

Veterans of scientific conferences, alas, have similar memories.

Was in a place in Talent (Rogue Valley) not long ago and had their coffee. It was...okay. So I asked for a mug of coffee with a shot of espresso in it. YES!!!

About 10 years ago here in the boondocks, coffee culture arrived like a tsunami: 3 coffee shops opened up in the span of 2 months. Feeling compelled to support local industry if at all possible, we would occasionally wander in to the one nearest us. They'd make coffee in a French press, which was passable, but of their pre-made stuff the best was their "awake!" blend that -- guess what? -- had a shot of espresso added to the brewed coffee.

I'll also say that, here in the US of A, the best---hands down, the best---coffee I've had lately is from my friend Jason Brandt Lewis! He's the best barista I know. In a lurch, our fall back is the original Peets down the hill though.

Can't say that I've had the pleasure. The Walnut Square store is a known quantity, though, starting on opening day in '67 (my dad had been buying roasted beans from Mr. Peet for a few years by then [he was roasting them in a warehouse in Oakland IIRC])

Ah, coffee and memories! What a redolent combination,
Mark Lipton

[David M. Bueker]

But for free I had to try it.

Interesting! If they were offering free punches in the nose, would you feel obliged to try one? Just askin' ...

Punches in the nose tend to have longer lasting effects. I was at least able to pour out the coffee.

Can't say that I've had the pleasure. The Walnut Square store is a known quantity, though, starting on opening day in '67 (my dad had been buying roasted beans from Mr. Peet for a few years by then [he was roasting them in a warehouse in Oakland IIRC])

I moved to Berkeley in '68. Took me about 15 minutes to find Peet's, The Cheese Board and the Co-op.

A fond memory of Starbucks. Was at Logan Airport in Boston laying over for a flight to San Francisco and desperately needed a coffee. Found Starbucks, ordered an espresso. Realized that in my wallet I had only hundred dollar bills but also a five euro note. I thought it would be more convenient to pay in the euros rather than have the clerk break the hundred. Offered it to her. Her response: "We only take real money here".

Best
Rogov

Heh. On my first visit to Paris in '68,

I knew it! You were a radical communist wild-eyed revolutionary in your youth!!! Were you on the barricades?

Yes, I can speak to the early 60s in Germany and France where it was pretty common to have chicory and roasted vegetables mixed in with coffee in the 'economy' places. And also, by then, enough folk had become accustomed to the stuff, as with Luzianne down in the southern US.

During the height of the coffee frenzy I had occasion to go to Sun Valley a few times, and there was a shop in the little downtown area that was constantly thronged. They featured something with a catchy name, Lava Java or Joltin' Java, or somesuch, that was a beverage of monstrous proportions, American-style. It was in a huge bowl and it had an extra-strong French Roast at base, with two shots of espresso, a shot of hot chocolate, cinnamon, and dollops of whipped cream to sugar it up. Even made the mountain air more clear.

True coffee story: early in my Brown-Forman days in the Seattle area we had a new supervisor visit our office. He was no more than a casual coffee drinker and had not had any of those new-fangled espressos or lattes, and was bemused by a visiting coffee truck that would come through the office and take orders every morning. So we bought him his first ever mocha.

He loved it, and lapped it up. Then we went out visiting stores, walked into his first QFC, and couldn't believe they had espresso bars right at the entrance of the store. Decided he wanted to try a regular latte. Loved that too.

Later, at lunch, he had a double-shot latte. He was energized all afternoon.

The next morning, when I picked him up at the hotel, he was somewhat bedraggled looking, so I asked if he was okay. He said yes, just a little tired. For some reason he sat up till after three in the morning, surfing channels on the tv, because he couldn't sleep. I said, hey, let's get you a mocha: that'll fix you right up!

Hoke
Had a similar experience having introduced my work colleagues to the joys of chocolate covered coffee beans. I took some orders when I went over to Nottingham to pick up some more. The boss asked for 3 (200g?) packets and IIRC ate 2 of them in a day. Apparently he didn't sleep a wink that night
regards
Ian

Heh. On my first visit to Paris in '68,

I knew it! You were a radical communist wild-eyed revolutionary in your youth!!! Were you on the barricades?

Can you believe that we missed all the fireworks? I have a bit of history with that sort of tourism. We arrived in Paris in July, a month after the riots, and suffered nothing worse than arriving with less than $20 in Francs after all the banks had closed for the night, so had to dine at a Le Gaulois cafeteria on the cheap. We also missed the '68 violence in Mexico by arriving there the next summer, but we didn't totally avoid the aftermath of the Year of Protest: my dad lost his job as a lecturer at SF State when SI Hayakawa (of dubious memory) and Gov. Reagan (of equally dubious memory) got rid of all the untenured staff who'd shown any sympathy for the students who'd occupied the administration building in '68 (favorite quote from RR re student protesters as he called in the Nat'l Guard: "If they want a bloodbath, we'll give them one" -- charming fellow)

Mark Lipton

So did you read Kurlansky's book?

It had an interesting effect on me, I think because I vicariously lived through the time (no ramparts, no barricades, and not nearly as much free love as I wanted). The book gave a decent summary, I suppose, of what transpired---but it somehow muted it, placed it at a historical distance.

It was disconcerting, to say the least, to have been "there" then, in all its uncertain frenzy, and then to be reading about it so many years later, thinking that most people reading it were not there then, and had never been, and were perceiving it as a history book of a quaint time.

So for antidote to that feeling I had to get a copy of Malle's "Milou en Mai", but in English known as "May Fools". It restored the surreal immediacy of the year for me.

Agree on Reagan.

Heh. On my first visit to Paris in '68,

I knew it! You were a radical communist wild-eyed revolutionary in your youth!!! Were you on the barricades?

Can you believe that we missed all the fireworks? I have a bit of history with that sort of tourism. We arrived in Paris in July, a month after the riots, and suffered nothing worse than arriving with less than $20 in Francs after all the banks had closed for the night, so had to dine at a Le Gaulois cafeteria on the cheap. We also missed the '68 violence in Mexico by arriving there the next summer, but we didn't totally avoid the aftermath of the Year of Protest: my dad lost his job as a lecturer at SF State when SI Hayakawa (of dubious memory) and Gov. Reagan (of equally dubious memory) got rid of all the untenured staff who'd shown any sympathy for the students who'd occupied the administration building in '68 (favorite quote from RR re student protesters as he called in the Nat'l Guard: "If they want a bloodbath, we'll give them one" -- charming fellow)

Mark Lipton

Assuming you arrived in June, I arrived a month after you. I was there for round two - in The Latin Quarter. I had a photo show (Vietnam photos) in the student building at San Francisco State during the strike.

My time in Mexico was blissful.

My memories of both Reagan and Hayakawa are not at all dubious. But, I'll hold my tongue for once.

[Jenise]

Jeff said:

But you're right, in McDonalds case, only IF I get the premium based kind (cappucino,hot mocha) I find them quite fresh and perfectly delicious (espresso-like)! Particularly for a fast food coffee! It's at least the best "everyday coffee" I've come across WITHOUT actually going to a true coffee/espresso house which, obviously aren't around at every turn like the good ole golden arches are

Because I have found McDonalds to have the best to-go coffee of the fast food places I've availed myself of that medicine a number of times when on the road and tired or in need of a potty break. And so it was that I was at a McDonalds halfway between Seattle and Spokane last year and decided to try a cappucino since that was really what I was in the mood for but not in an area likely to offer up a good purveyor anytime soon. Never again! It was very bland, seemed deliberately dumbed down for mass appeal, not unlike a comparison between their burgers and what most of us here would consider a good burger. Burnt or not, fresh is always best and the McDonalds version had absolutely no fresh roast flavor.

Agreed on both counts, Jenise.

Their coffee is now decent, where their lattes are grossly offensive.

Confession time... last March, when in New York, stayed at a fine hotel but at 3 a.m., knowing that their coffee was abysmal, avoided room service and wandered along and found a McDonalds that was open. Wandered in, took out (lord forgive me) coffee to go in a cardboard container, took it back to my room and actually found it quite acceptable.

Best
Rogov

Burnt or not, fresh is always best

I agree! That's actually what I was attempting to defend originally as far as espresso-based coffee/starbucks vs any non-espresso (water based) coffee is concerned. I have no problem with people not liking starbucks for the "burnt profile" etc (or any other place they may not enjoy) but my only point (or preference) is that I would still always choose a fresh but "poor/ruined/burnt" shot at starbucks/or name your place than have a fresh (or un-fresh) but "quality" water-based coffee. But that's just me. I'm personally an "espresso person" when it comes to coffee. I just don't find "normal" coffee the same again once I have the thick stuff. And yes I do even prefer real but "bad" espresso as long as it is indeed espresso! I guess that's my point. Bad or not I just like the "real thing". No water coffee, even the best is better than even a "poor" espresso. But that's just my opinion and I agree that may be a silly opinion. I think most of it may just be a body/weight/texture issue for me which is why no water based coffees (even the best) can compare obviously. Although I don't deny that indeed espresso vary between each other. It's not that I necessarily "prefer" Starbucks/McDonald's or anything. If it were up to me (and it was practical) I would always pick one of, say, Italy's finest cafe's or something . But on the other hand, Starbucks (for me) is still a far better option than anything NON-espresso can provide! That's my only defense really. But you just like what you like. I know everyone's tatses vary (especially with something like coffee)...

Jeff

[David M. Bueker]

McDonads coffee is very good now. Sure I would rather grind up some Peet's at home, but that does not work on the road. Dunkin Donuts coffee is good too (skip the donuts/bagels/etc).

[Jenise]

But on the other hand, Starbucks (for me) is still a far better option than anything NON-espresso can provide! That's my only defense really. But you just like what you like. I know everyone's tatses vary (especially with something like coffee)...

Jeff

Agreed; wasn't picking on you. I'm like Hoke--don't mind Starbucks, but I like others better. I just didn't think McDonalds' espresso drink, the one time I had it, was good enough. I wondered at the time, in fact, if it wasn't made from some kind of instant (since we're on that subject) vs. real bean, hence my emphasis on freshness.