Ernie Schenk opened up a little can of worms with a recent post about Starbucks. I started to comment on his blog, but realized I was going a little long-winded, so I'm sticking it here instead:
Ernie writes: "I've often wondered what it is about some brands that permit them to grow and flourish virtually free from derision while others, like Starbucks, seem to have a lot of good will in the early stages of their growth cycle but become increasingly disliked as they get bigger and more successful."
It's irritating that every 5 miles in Dallas there's a Home Depot, a Bed Bath Beyond, a GAP and a Circuit City. I don't think anyone has an issue with Starbucks as a product or a brand, although they did reportedly have a very blood-thirsty business model initially, where they'd offer to buy mom and pop coffee shops, and if refused, they'd open up right next door and run them out of business.
But that aside, I'm just sick of driving fifteen miles and passing the same six stores. It's become apparent that we're running out of constructive economic opportunities at the brick-and-mortar level. The only things that prosper are huge retail chains and huge fast food/fast casual QSRs. It begs the question: do we need another friggin Starbucks on the other side of the street? Does Starbucks need another Starbucks?
It's development abuse. Starbucks is officially forcing itself on people when it opens locations with that kind of frequency and density. I don't give a shit if they make money, but DAMN - leave an acre of grass here and there.
Not to mention, along with the urban sprawl issue, there's the whole cultivated-need issue. For years, we got along without three $4-$7 cups of coffee a day. Now we piss away $50 on a whim - no wonder bankruptcy is up. We're all financing our caffeine fix.
But enough from me. Let The Kid From Brooklyn tell you about it.
