For many, a morning cup of coffee may be a daily ritual. In today's fast-paced world, many may not even have the time to brew it at home, preferring instead to stop at a coffee shop on the way to work or school. There are plenty of chains in many areas to frequent, especially Starbucks. Some may grumble about the money that they have to pay for a single cup of coffee at one of these stores. But how many think about the actual cost of that cup of coffee, or where the profits are really going, or where the profits really should be going?
[...] However, as Lyons writes, commodity with a long and complex chronicle of consumption and production, coffee is a perennially global product par excellence. Thus the notion of ‘Seattle Coffee' is in some sense the attempt to fix, temporally and spatially, a commodity involved in a perpetual process of flux and exchange” (29). The company was also conscious to keep the atmosphere of its stores different from that of a smaller, less corporate coffeehouse. Starbucks was trying to court customers who might be turned off by the vibe given off by these other, edgier coffeehouses. [...]
[...] These three employees—Sarah Bender, Laura De Anda, and Peter Montalbano—were also awarded backpay, with interest In the body of the document, Starbucks was forced to promise to result to neither threats nor outright bribery to discourage employees from joining the Starbucks Union The company also had to give up its campaign of retribution toward employees who wore pro-union pins or distributed or posted reading materials authored by the union Oddly enough, the Corporate Social Responsibility section of the Starbucks company website, the “Starbucks Position Regarding Unions Representing Our Partners (employees)” is dated December This literature is written indicating that it is directed toward the employees. [...]
[...] < http: pressdesc.asp> “Oxfam Calls on Starbucks to Stop Bullying the Poor.” Press Releases November 2006. Oxfam America December 2006. < http: press_releases> “Premium Prices and Transparency.” The Business of Coffee Starbucks December 2006. < http: aboutus> Ritzer, George. Introduction to McDonaldization.” McDonaldization. The Reader. Ed. George Ritzer. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: 2006. 4-24. Starbucks. National Labor Relations Board Settlement Agreement. Starbucks. March “Starbucks CEO Meets with Ethiopia Over Ownership of Coffee Names.” Press Releases November 2006. Oxfam America December 2006.< http: newsandpublications press_release.2006-11-> “Starbucks Marketing [...]
[...] It's just that convenience. (Thompson and Arsel 638) Starbucks is therefore an efficient manner in which to satisfy one's caffeinated cravings, again playing into one of George Ritzer's components of McDonaldization, this time on the side of the customer (15). One thing to note is that the smaller coffee joints embraced by those with anti-Starbucks sentiments may engage in business practices effectively mirroring those of the java juggernaut. Small coffee shops are not automatically precluded from the Starbucks business model. [...]
[...] He asserts that, problem with any chain is that everything is standardized,” and goes on to say that, “They have to worry about each specific product appealing to the widest demographic they can.” The homogenization of Starbucks robs it of quality for Antonio. There is nothing special about anything it assembles yet it tries to differentiate itself from regular coffee joints by using a standardized naming system that Antonio finds idiotic. He feels irked by the sheer number of Starbucks stores that exist. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
