Senseless Vandalism
Unlike many of my fellow Metbloggers, I’m not a coffee snob. I never drank the stuff until I moved to Portland - and while I love a nice big flavored latte - I can’t drink it unless it’s really fluffed up with cream and flavoring and such - so I don’t think I really taste much of the coffee itself.
Because the taste of the coffee is somewhat irrelevant to me, I’m torn on Starbucks - it has some good corporate practices, it has some bad ones. I have a few local places that I love to go to - but if Starbucks is the most convenient option, especially early in the morning - I’ll go there.
We went out last night for a friends birthday and had more than a few beers - so I really needed some coffee this morning. There is a drive-thru Starbucks right by the convention center on my way to work - so I pulled in. But there was an employee standing in the parking lot directing traffic away - someone super-glued their locks shut and they weren’t open quite yet.
I know this has happened before at Starbucks as a protest about their business practices - but I’m sorry - I don’t care what you think of a company - it’s still vandalism, it’s still wrong.
And I still don’t have any coffee.
Related posts:
Small-scale vandalism is wrong.
But so is the larger evil of opening a Starbucks across the street from a locally-owned kickass coffee shop.
With Starbucks’ deep pockets, they can afford to lose money over time until new people move to the neighborhood (say from other places where Starbucks is more familiar to them) and grow their customer base.
A Starbucks moved into my old neighborhood and over time (close to two years), my old coffee shop reached a point where it couldn’t make enough money to stay open with the local customers divided between two businesses. However, Starbucks could keep losing $ until it drove the other business out and took over the entire consumer base.
And I don’t support Starbucks’ predatory business practices. So now I don’t have my coffee either.
Not trying to start an arguement. Just saying there are larger issues that may deserve our ire.
This kind of thing is a cost of doing business the way Starbucks does business. If they didn’t run their company like a bunch of assholes, they wouldn’t have a problem with people treating them like a bunch of assholes. It’s basic economics, in a sense. Vandals like these are communicating with the Starbucks corporation in the only language corporations speak: money.
Speaking of Starbucks and crime: I think it should be illegal for the drive in Starbucks on MLK to block traffic for hours every morning with their queue of coffee-starved, SUV-driving suburbanites. Buses have to use that right-hand lane!
Ben - I just want to throw out that although that’s the Starbucks I go to sometimes - I am neither an SUV driver, nor a suburbanite, and I won’t even consider stopping if the line extends past the parking lot. But with Coffee People closed - they’re the only drive-thru on my way in.
I hate moral relativism.
In both comments above, the wrong ascribed to Starbucks should actually be directed at Starbucks’ customers, if at all. But since those customers are numerous and largely nameless, it’s much easier for people to direct their anger at a corporation.
Steve, what’s so “evil” about opening a Starbucks across the street from a “kickass” cafe? If the cafe is, in fact, “kickass”, then why would people stop going there? I mean, if Starbucks opened across from any of my beloved Stumptowns, don’t think that any number of decades would prove a long enough time for me to decide I’d buy a cup of Starbucks’ burnt slag instead of a nice Stumptown espresso. So if Starbucks’ “predatory “actions work, it’s only because people are stupid and/or they prefer the taste of milkshakes to actual coffee. But, on the other hand, I didn’t hear anyone cry when, a few months after the downtown Stumptown opened, the nearby chain cafe closed.
And Ben, assholes will continue to act like assholes whether or not Starbucks also acts like assholes, precisely because that’s what assholes (Starbucks employees or haters) do. And recommending that it should be “illegal” for a place to be popular is, frankly, dumb. If you don’t like it that so many people like Starbucks, try dissuading those people. Let me know how that works, by the way.
KATU or KGW (I don’t remember which) reported that six Starbucks were glued, along with a McMenamin’s (they didn’t say which one).
McMenamin’s? Is that a new wrinkle in the glue game?
Todd,
You just might be my new hero. Seriously.
I get sooooooo tired of the Portlander trendier-than-thou mentality that makes so many people think that a company who’s successful must necessarily have some sort of pact with the Devil. Granted, that’s true in many cases, but that’s just coincidence…
The fact that a company has an effective business model that works within the laws of the land might suck for the mom and pop shops that can’t compete with the Starbucks Juggernaut head-to-head, but there are better (and legal) ways to fight the power. Regardless of what you might think of their product and their success, I don’t see how anyone can say breaking the law is a justifiable response.
Just wanna second Justin in giving a big “thumbs up” to Kevin’s post. There is NO excuse for vandalism - large scale or small. They’re not “communicating” anything - they’re breaking the law and I hope they’re found and punished. Also, opening a Starbucks in the same general vicinity as a local shop is far from evil. Like Todd said, if the local place is so awesome, they’ll do fine.
Finally, the snobbery against “SUV driving suburbanites” needs to stop. People from the ‘burbs drive Portland’s economy just like the locals do. Give ‘em a break.
As an aside, when I worked in the Pearl, there was a “local” shop and a Starbuck’s. I tried the local place - the service was intolerably rude, so I went to the Starbucks, where the service was generally friendly (and, frankly, the quality of the coffee was pretty much equal at both places). So I ditched the local joint and gave Starbuck’s my business.
It’s fascinating to see people get so emotional when two people slag Starbucks. Who knew these other folks would take it so personally as to strongly defend this poor lamb of a corporation?
What’s “evil” (and lazy) about Starbucks is their business model is to simply move into a neighborhood that has proven itself to economically support a local coffee shop.
Generally, these neighborhoods don’t need two coffeeshops, and Starbucks is aware of this point but moves in anyway.
Then Starbucks knowingly can afford to lose money in the short run while the neighborhood changes. (people move in, people move out - normal life)
And when new folks come in from Beaverton, St. Louis, or New York, their familiarity is with Starbucks making these new residents statistically more likely to shop there.
It’s not that the mom & pop does bad business or serves an inferior product. We’re just talking about non-emotional marketing. :) But this driving out of local businesses is predatory. And evil.
I have to agree with Todd’s point that these consumers share the blame for the loss of local businesses. That’s an important point.
But presenting an opposing viewpoint to Starbucks doesn’t make you, the reader, uncool. Don’t be so insecure… :)
And I should mention that Starbucks also buys out local businesses and converts them. This practice may not be evil as I’m sure the local businesses are paid well. It’s just a drag if you don’t like Starbucks’ products.
But I don’t think Todd’s understanding of moral relativity is 100% as I agreed that the vandalism is wrong and just asked that people consider Starbucks’ own actions.
But speaking for myself, I do love the idea that I could be trendier-than-thou! I’m just a old Army Vet with uncool hair and clothes. I had a friend read this page (with the trendy comment and the “blog hero” workship), and we had a great laugh. So please keep it up!
And thanks for reading.
Totally tangent here… And considering how far down the page this post is now I don’t expect anybody to read this. Wouldn’t be the first time I talked to myself, though.
Anyway, about the trendier-than-thou thing… Thing that bugs me the most about it is that the people who have that attitude so often don’t even realize that they’re exactly like the people they’re trying to distance themselves from. They see something become popular and they say to themselves “I’m sooooo much cooler than all those sheep… I’m never going to do/wear/eat what all those people do.” Then they try to play themselves off as weird, or hip, or different.
Thing is, though, that those same people are still basing all their decisions off of the acts of the masses. Yeah, they try to go in the opposite direction of the rest of the lemmings, but they’re still letting popularity guide their decisions.
Much fewer and further between are the people who objectively look at something and make their own decisions based solely on their own feelings. I tip my hat to those people. Wish I could do it more often myself. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the Portlanders hatin’ on Starbucks, WalMart, the WTO, etc. only do it because they’re trying too damned hard to be different rather than just trying to be themselves.
Steve, I think you’re being silly. I didn’t “defend” Starbucks at all — in fact, I called their coffee “burnt slag” (though, again, they do make a tasty milkshake). So that’s at least three people slagging Starbucks, or at least their product.
And I still think you’re missing the point about moral relativism. Anytime someone starts a response to a wrong action with “I know it’s wrong, BUT …”, they’ve started down the road to moral relativism. You insist on calling Starbucks’ actions “evil”, but they’re not. And they’re certainly not illegal. What they are is offensive. To you. And maybe some other people. But obviously, not to the people who shop there. But to begin to equate an illegal action (which you seem to spin as “presenting an opposing viewpoint”) and a moral, legal (yet, to you, annoying) business plan is really goofy. Your personal opinions do not define good and bad.
Also, your claims of Starbucks’ “predatory” actions are, well, ridiculous. You seem to be ascribing to them the more-believably-predatory plans of WalMart. But Starbucks doesn’t underprice their product to drive out other businesses — great gravy man, have you priced their coffee milkshakes lately?! They’re not losing money! As has been made plain, they’re bringing in people by the hordes. And not because of their “predatory” actions — because they’re giving people what they want. Again, if you don’t like that, blame the people. I’m not crazy about it myself, but I don’t let it keep me up at night, either.
Come on, Justin, we’re listening to you… :)
Though I hear ya in that there’s definitely no immediate human response on a blog. I guess that’s why I don’t get overly emotional when presented with views different from my own.
And I’ve found those like Todd who do get so emotional and use perjoritive terms about differing viewpoints simply diminish their own argument. While, on the other hand when your post was more about your own ideas, I had to stop and realize you have a good point.
It’s true I don’t like the business practices of Wal-Mart and Starbucks - which differs from slagging on a product while defending their business practices like Todd who doesn’t seem to understand this difference. But I can see how my own views fit very neatly into that particular Pdx stereotype. So I might turn off folks who are predisposed to not like/hear that “type.” I’m going to be aware of this fact.
Oh, and the predatory argument is not ridiculous. It’s fact. But they don’t undercut prices, Todd. They simply sell less product until their local market grows. There isn’t just one tactical method of predatory business in the world. Wal-Mart’s version is only the one that most people with just a basic knowledge know.
And I’d absolutely argue that Starbucks’ business plan is not moral. I’m sorry if that makes you upset and want to defend Starbucks for some reason… :)
And no one’s saying “it’s wrong, but…” I’m saying vandalism is wrong. And I’m saying that predatory business practices are evil. We can hold both ideas. Plus wrong and evil aren’t quite the same w/ regards to my own words.
And it’s cool that you defend Starbucks’ business practices (along with their delicious milkshakes). Heck, I fought overseas so we can disagree. Or so the media tells me…
But your new qualifier about legal/illegal is interesting. With Gitmo, wiretapping, CIA prisons, etc these days, that’s not one I use as a morally universal qualifier. It’s a crazy world where Gitmo is legal, eh? But again, this isn’t a notion I’d use. I just wanted to address this new qualifier you brought up.
So yes, it’s just a debate of ideas. And when someone gets shrill or emotional as to call names and such, well, I figure I made a good point. Or they’re just really insecure. Maybe I’ll try one of them delicious milkshakes to make me feel better… :)
Cheers!
Steve, just so you know, expressing my opinion that certain ideas are “silly” or even “ridiculous” hardly implies that I’m over here shaking in anger. Though, to be honest, I did wet myself. (Kidding.)
I also have a hard time taking seriously complaints about using “perjorative terms about differing viewpoints” from a guy who casually tosses off “evil” like it was a Starbucks trademark. Look, we all express opinions, and opinions about other’s opinions. If you don’t want to know what people think about what you think, then don’t air your opinions in public.
I admit I still don’t get your “Starbucks is predatory” argument, which, as you’ve explained it, seems to go like this: (1) Starbucks moves somewhere, (2) Starbucks is popular. Of course, I’ve framed it here to make it sound as ridiculous as possible, but the only thing you’ve added to that outline is that (1b) Starbucks has deep, corporate pockets, which, as best I can tell, is what makes them “predatory”. Would you care to point to any legal ruling that in any way backs up your reasoning here? Or did predatory become a synonym for “annoying” when I wasn’t looking?
Finally, as to your defense that “no one’s saying ‘it’s wrong, but…’”, perhaps you’d care to read the first two sentences in your first comment. I’ll copy them here, for your convenience: “Small-scale vandalism is wrong. But …”
It takes a person with little if any critical thinking to ascribe to the usual “bag corporation is evil” mindset. Unfortunately, Portland is ful of them.
Starbucks strted out small, and local. They were smart and grew their business. People were happy. But then something terrible happened. They got big enough that they weren’t “cool” anymore.
They pay more for beans than just about anyone. They recycle their grounds for use in local gardens. They do all kinds of nice/friendly stuff.
Opening a shop across from a local place isn’t wrong, and it’s laughably far from “evil” as one poster put it. EVIL?
How would you go about stopping this EVIL? Making a law that requires Starbucks to stop its growth? Not allowing national chains to build within a block of “awesome” local shops?
The thing about this country, the thing that fools like you hate, is that the market is somewhat free. Success can be vast. To stay in business you have to work hard. God knows Starbucks did.
Heh, heh… Todd, I dig you, man. And “Rasputin” is awesome.
Right, so I wasn’t sure if you were kidding or seriously somehow really having a rough time understanding the basics repeated a few times above. But since you’re not emotional (though apparently have the time to re-read and quote posts - that’s awesome!), let me say yet again that having deep pockets isn’t enough to be predatory.
And I love you quoting me! So to quote again per above, Starbucks doesn’t “undercut prices, Todd. They simply sell less product until their local market grows.” And deep pockets allow them to do this. Still not makin’ sense? No worries. It’s okay. Your defensive posture speaks louder volumes.
Just like how you ignored being shown how your slagging the product versus us slagging the business are totally different. But when you jump around and take no accountability in your ideas and points while you use perjoritive terms for others, it’s hard to take you seriously. It shows the emotional, non-intellectual stance. Not as easy to give you credence but fun all the same…
:) And when you quoted me (I still love that!) with the “but” statement, you’re missing the point again. I’m not saying “…but vandalism is okay because Starbucks is evil.” I’m saying yep vandy is bad. But don’t just see that fact and ignore that Starbucks is evil. We humans can juggle a couple thoughts at once. Well, most.
I can totally see you’re not much on nuance. Everything is very black/white. Sigh. Guess that’s the Fox News/Punditry world today. (yeh, we know you’re not a neocon and no is saying you are…)
But everybody at my job has looked forward to your posts. So thanks! (We’re all knuckle draggers so don’t feel bad, young Lord Fauntleroy…you’re just great!)
And I’ll bow out and have to say it seems we’ll have to agree to disagree. Or I will anyway. If you want to keep spinnin’ like a top, do it my man - thanks and have a great weekend!