In the, "Typo???" thread, I ramble on and on about how I object to the following text on the Adagio site:
Gourmet vs. Supermarket Tea
Remember when your choice of coffee ranged from Folgers to Sanka? And then Starbucks came along to show how much better it can be. The same is true of tea. The varieties on offer in your supermarket are the bottom of the barrel: low-quality bags containing tea dust - the tiny leaf particles that break off when tea leaves are processed. They'll add color to your cup, but not much flavor. A far cry from the abundance of flavor and intoxicating aroma found in a cup of full-leaf gourmet tea. Chances are, you are no longer drinking Sanka. Once you try our teas, you will not wish to drink anything sold in the supermarket either.
In the spirit of constructive criticism, I suggest it be changed to something more like the following:
Gourmet vs. Supermarket Tea
Tea comes in different grades or levels of quality. What's available in the supermarket is mostly the bottom of the barrel: low-quality bags containing tea dust - the tiny leaf particles that break off when tea leaves are processed. They'll add color to your cup, but not much flavor. A far cry from the abundance of flavor and intoxicating aroma found in a cup of fresh, full-leaf gourmet tea. Once you try Adagio teas, you will not wish to drink anything sold in the supermarket again.
I feel the whole Starbucks, Sanka, Folgers stuff just gets in the way of the main point. It's become my little pet peeve.
I know a lot of you like the analogy; however, I'm wondering if anyone else feels Adagio could do better without it?
Will Gladly,
Jing Cha
Would the departed never nowhere nohow reappear? Ever he would wander, selfcompelled, to the extreme limit of his cometary orbit, beyond the fixed stars and variable suns and telescopic planets, astronomical waifs and strays, to the extreme boundary of space, passing from land to land, among peoples, amid events. Somewhere imperceptibly he would hear and somehow reluctantly, suncompelled, obey the summons of recall.
Feb 1st, '06, 20:45
Posts: 210
Joined: Jun 9th, '05, 01:21
Location: The tea wasteland that is Utah
Contact:
Marlene
It doesn't bug me, but perhaps the comparison shouldn't be sanka/starbucks but budlight/small batch micro brewed very tasty beer, like polygamy porter (you can't have just one! heh, stuff like that makes me glad to live in utah. I like the quorrum of the twelve sampler pack)
Never trust a man who, when left alone in a room with a tea cozy, dosn't try it on.
-Billy Connolly
-Billy Connolly
let there be mermaids!
No offense is taken. I know, regardless of my idiosyncrasies, most people really like the Starbucks analogy. I'm not here to beat people over the head with what I think is right, nor re-open the same can of worms over and over again.
I truly just wanted to start a dialogue on the analogy and perhaps the phrasing of that well-intended statement.
In the spirit of compromise, I offer the following:
Remember when your choice of coffee ranged from instant to canned? Then Starbucks came along and woke us up to how much better it can be. The same is true of tea. What's available in the supermarket is mostly the bottom of the barrel: low-quality bags containing tea dust - the tiny leaf particles that break off when tea leaves are processed. They'll add color to your cup, but not much flavor. A far cry from the abundance of flavor and intoxicating aroma found in a cup of fresh, full-leaf gourmet tea. Chances are, you are no longer drinking industrial coffee. Once you try our teas, you will not wish to drink anything sold in the supermarket either.
Of course, Adagio are the experts and Chris has superhero linguistic powers to condense a wealth of wisdom in a few choice funny, appealing words. I'm just throwing around ideas.
I think the least that one can do is pull Sanka and Folgers out of this. My mum loves Sanka. I think it's the orange label. And I do enjoy my Folger's. It's Mountain Grown!
Will Gladly,
Jing Cha
Shakespeare is the happy hunting ground of all minds that have lost their balance.
I truly just wanted to start a dialogue on the analogy and perhaps the phrasing of that well-intended statement.
In the spirit of compromise, I offer the following:
Remember when your choice of coffee ranged from instant to canned? Then Starbucks came along and woke us up to how much better it can be. The same is true of tea. What's available in the supermarket is mostly the bottom of the barrel: low-quality bags containing tea dust - the tiny leaf particles that break off when tea leaves are processed. They'll add color to your cup, but not much flavor. A far cry from the abundance of flavor and intoxicating aroma found in a cup of fresh, full-leaf gourmet tea. Chances are, you are no longer drinking industrial coffee. Once you try our teas, you will not wish to drink anything sold in the supermarket either.
Of course, Adagio are the experts and Chris has superhero linguistic powers to condense a wealth of wisdom in a few choice funny, appealing words. I'm just throwing around ideas.
I think the least that one can do is pull Sanka and Folgers out of this. My mum loves Sanka. I think it's the orange label. And I do enjoy my Folger's. It's Mountain Grown!
Will Gladly,
Jing Cha
Shakespeare is the happy hunting ground of all minds that have lost their balance.
Your target market doesn't even know what Sanka is. Tea isn't just for grandmothers anymore. That is Adagio's stance, isn't it?
Or are you trying to convince a rapidly diminishing market who lived through the Great Depression and whose spending habits were directly influenced by that experience? Cause they are pretty set in their ways, you know. Hell, my grandmother still drinks powdered milk.
________________________________________________
Now back to my regularly scheduled Postum ... err I mean Ovaltine ... err I mean Starbucks .. err I mean Pu-erh! Yeah, that's it.
Or are you trying to convince a rapidly diminishing market who lived through the Great Depression and whose spending habits were directly influenced by that experience? Cause they are pretty set in their ways, you know. Hell, my grandmother still drinks powdered milk.
________________________________________________
Now back to my regularly scheduled Postum ... err I mean Ovaltine ... err I mean Starbucks .. err I mean Pu-erh! Yeah, that's it.
The Sanka analogy is clever and I do like it. At the same time, I can see where Jing & Kool-Aid are coming from.
My father-in-law drinks Sanka (or some other instant) and I see nothing wrong with it. Some people would rather have the convenience over the quality. Granted, whenever there is pie or cake served, my mother-in-law will put a pot of folgers on. To be fair to folgers, they actually have some really good "cheap" coffee.
I do think this is way too much of a nitpick tho. All the same, for the sake of clarity to those that aren't familiar with it, I'd amend the sentence to read "Sanka & other instant coffees".
And, as to those readers out there who might be offended by the wording, they would need to grow a thicker skin. Any layperson that reads the book would have to realize (from the preface) what the book is about. It's a Tea lover telling you how great tea is. In fact, I'm surprised (and relieved) Chris' writings aren't more anti-coffee & anti-Lipton. And I would think that kind of negativity would turn others off to the world of tea.
(This post is way too long)
My father-in-law drinks Sanka (or some other instant) and I see nothing wrong with it. Some people would rather have the convenience over the quality. Granted, whenever there is pie or cake served, my mother-in-law will put a pot of folgers on. To be fair to folgers, they actually have some really good "cheap" coffee.
I do think this is way too much of a nitpick tho. All the same, for the sake of clarity to those that aren't familiar with it, I'd amend the sentence to read "Sanka & other instant coffees".
And, as to those readers out there who might be offended by the wording, they would need to grow a thicker skin. Any layperson that reads the book would have to realize (from the preface) what the book is about. It's a Tea lover telling you how great tea is. In fact, I'm surprised (and relieved) Chris' writings aren't more anti-coffee & anti-Lipton. And I would think that kind of negativity would turn others off to the world of tea.
(This post is way too long)
While I certainly respect the fact that you might not consider this matter important enough to examine closely and think about carefully, while you are clearly welcomed to your opinion on the matter, I am saddened by the fact that you would see this as merely splitting hairs.javyn wrote:I'm not a coffee drinker, am young, and of course I know what Sanka is. Everyone does. I see nothing wrong with the analogy. Even if I did, I wouldn't split hairs over it.
Truth, honor, integrity, accuracy, relevancy, morality, and respect are certainly not things which should be seen as, "Splitting hairs."
And the question is this: Is the passage more relevant, more on-point with or without the perhaps misguided analogy?
If you feel the passage reads more clearly, more directly, more effectively in demonstrating a call to gourmet tea by conjuring Starbucks and putting down Folgers, Sanka, and all of their consumers, then I respect that opinion very much. I put up a poll and asked for feedback because I wanted to hear what you have to say. (Thank you to all those who have voted!)
If you feel that ignoring the vast differences between coffee and tea is a good thing, that not appreciating the actual poignant similarities in raising the consumer quality bar is clever, then I accept the fact that you're not truly passionate about improving the sad situation of tea in America.
But if you wish to conveniently pack the entire debate into the nutshell of, "Who Cares?" or "I don't see anything wrong," then,
as Hilary Putnam once said, "Any philosophy that can be put in a nutshell, belongs in one."
Will Gladly,
Jing Cha
invisible, refined out of existence, indifferent, paring his fingernails
um, well. as a former coffee fanatic, and a starbucks employee (shhh), i've got to say that i think the comparison is pretty good--whether you like starbucks coffee or not, i think they were the first to really promote buying coffee beans and grinding them fresh for quality, as opposed to buying coffee that's been ground for months or--god forbid--instant "coffee." now there are some better options in grocery stores, with other companies offering beans as well--that's the kind of wake-up call that would be nice to have with tea in america.
also, whether you've personally ever liked coffee or not, if you're really interested in getting people in america to be more enlightened about quality tea, i think using a coffee example is right on the mark. i know a lot of americans only come to be tea-drinkers after being long-time coffee drinkers, whether because of caffeine reasons, the health benefits, or just because they prefer the way it makes them feel. i think the coffee comparison is a pretty succinct way to get former coffee drinkers (a lot of americans...) to understand our beef with bagged grocery tea. in fact, i used that exact comparison with my formerly non-tea-drinking parents, and it seemed to be a eureka moment for them. they're now confirmed adagio lovers, i'm proud to say...
also, whether you've personally ever liked coffee or not, if you're really interested in getting people in america to be more enlightened about quality tea, i think using a coffee example is right on the mark. i know a lot of americans only come to be tea-drinkers after being long-time coffee drinkers, whether because of caffeine reasons, the health benefits, or just because they prefer the way it makes them feel. i think the coffee comparison is a pretty succinct way to get former coffee drinkers (a lot of americans...) to understand our beef with bagged grocery tea. in fact, i used that exact comparison with my formerly non-tea-drinking parents, and it seemed to be a eureka moment for them. they're now confirmed adagio lovers, i'm proud to say...
you call that foam? looks like meringue!
Sippy Cup,
Great name! And thank you for your contribution to the discussion. I appreciate your opinions and insights. They make me feel less itchy. Or maybe that golden yunnan salve is finally starting to work ...
The best part of Starbucks, by far, is their employees. They train and treat their hires better than just about anyone in the fast-food industry. In turn, most all Partners truly do rise to the challenge of making each customer's experience special. It's certainly about way more than the coffee. You surely have to agree with that!
That said, let me address a few things you said:
Many have championed the fresh-ground cause past and present and will champion it further in the future. Why give Starbucks all the credit? Because they are the biggest? Because they are the most well-recognized? Because they are the trendiest? Because they are, "perceived," to have had the biggest impact? Well, it's supporting that perception which bugs me.
Yes, Starbucks is important and valuable and has a far-reaching soap-box from which to advocate. But they were not, "the first," to really promote buying coffee beans and grinding them fresh for quality. Nor did they invent nor do they even manufacture any coffee grinders, nor have they contributed in any way to the advancement of this technology. They capitalize on it, yes, but they don't advance it. Just because you slap the name Starbucks onto a product does not mean you did much.
Compare that to David Schomer demanding precise temperature regulation in an espresso machine from manufacturers or his invention of a more ergonomic tamper or in his vast consulting toward producing an acceptable home espresso machine or in writing the most well-regarded book on professional espresso technique or in producing one of the best videos for teaching latte art.
When I called Starbucks and asked them where their Puetro Rico coffee comes from, if it's blended with other origins or is a single-origin offering, they can't even confirm that any of it is actually from Puerto Rico! That's considered, oddly enough, proprietary information.
The movement toward organic, shade-grown and fair-trade coffees have also held large effect. Starbucks at first resisted and then jumped on that bandwagon, though they don't seem truly committed to the principles of the movement so much as the profitability of it.
In fact, according to Kenneth Davids, a foremost specialty coffee authority, Starbucks is against the grain in that they don't offer a superior choice on the supermarket shelves:
Bucks County Coffee, Allegro Coffee, Millstone, Illy and Green Mountain Coffee have been much more committed to and active in the grocery segment than SBUX.
Unfortunately, I don't agree with telling pretty lies or making false comparisons to show others the light. But that's my pet peeve and I accept that most others don't understand, care, or hold themselves to the same standard. I know, picky picky picky me.
Maybe if the text said, "Then Starbucks came along and helped show us how much better it can be," I wouldn't be so bothered.
When I read my mother the text in question, she said, "Huh? What's this stuff about Sanka? Doesn't Starbucks sell their own tea?" Then she talked to me for hours on end about, "Fill it to the rim with Brim," and bowel regularity.
I usually need only tell people that most bagged tea found in the supermarket is grown in Argentina for them to have a eureka moment. The words, "tea dust," also seem to work wonders on their own.
Anyway, I've made my point and have expressed my feelings and opinions enough. I'm sure everyone is tired of me beating this subject to death by now.
Let's start a new topic somewhere about introducing other people to tea: what we tell them, how we help them, etc. I'd love to exchange ideas and swap stories about what we each can do to help the cause. Let us accommodate for a myriad of approaches and multiple attitudes toward this common goal.
I thank everyone for the discussion here.
Will Gladly,
Jing Cha
I am tomorrow, or some future day, what I establish today. I am today what I established yesterday or some previous day.
Great name! And thank you for your contribution to the discussion. I appreciate your opinions and insights. They make me feel less itchy. Or maybe that golden yunnan salve is finally starting to work ...
The best part of Starbucks, by far, is their employees. They train and treat their hires better than just about anyone in the fast-food industry. In turn, most all Partners truly do rise to the challenge of making each customer's experience special. It's certainly about way more than the coffee. You surely have to agree with that!
That said, let me address a few things you said:
Untrue. Alfred Peet championed this long before Starbucks was even born. In fact, it was Peet who inspired and taught Starbucks about coffee. In fact, none of the original founders are with Starbucks anymore. Jerry Baldwin is now with Peet's, which Starbucks purchased in 1984 before Starbucks was sold (sans Peet's) to Howard Schultz in 1987. Gordon Bowker moved on to Peet's, Redhook Ale Brewery, etc. Zev Siegler pursued other lower-profile interests. Tim Mccormack, the original roaster, became a coffee consultant, went on to co-found Zoka Coffee (proud outlet for Adagio products!) then moved on to become a Partner (as in part-owner, not pastry-picker) with Mukilteo Coffee then pitched in to help head up Hotwire coffee. As for Alfred Peet, he's a simple old man living in rural Oregon who says he dislikes the coffee quality of both the company that bears his name as well as Starbucks.sippy cup wrote:whether you like starbucks coffee or not, i think they were the first to really promote buying coffee beans and grinding them fresh for quality, as opposed to buying coffee that's been ground for months or--god forbid--instant "coffee."
Many have championed the fresh-ground cause past and present and will champion it further in the future. Why give Starbucks all the credit? Because they are the biggest? Because they are the most well-recognized? Because they are the trendiest? Because they are, "perceived," to have had the biggest impact? Well, it's supporting that perception which bugs me.
Yes, Starbucks is important and valuable and has a far-reaching soap-box from which to advocate. But they were not, "the first," to really promote buying coffee beans and grinding them fresh for quality. Nor did they invent nor do they even manufacture any coffee grinders, nor have they contributed in any way to the advancement of this technology. They capitalize on it, yes, but they don't advance it. Just because you slap the name Starbucks onto a product does not mean you did much.
Compare that to David Schomer demanding precise temperature regulation in an espresso machine from manufacturers or his invention of a more ergonomic tamper or in his vast consulting toward producing an acceptable home espresso machine or in writing the most well-regarded book on professional espresso technique or in producing one of the best videos for teaching latte art.
When I called Starbucks and asked them where their Puetro Rico coffee comes from, if it's blended with other origins or is a single-origin offering, they can't even confirm that any of it is actually from Puerto Rico! That's considered, oddly enough, proprietary information.
There would have been better options regardless of Starbucks' eminence. The invention of the valve-bag has been the greatest single element in creating choice on supermarket shelves. Sorry--but the Mermaid had nothing to with that whatsoever!sippy cup wrote:now there are some better options in grocery stores, with other companies offering beans as well--that's the kind of wake-up call that would be nice to have with tea in america."
The movement toward organic, shade-grown and fair-trade coffees have also held large effect. Starbucks at first resisted and then jumped on that bandwagon, though they don't seem truly committed to the principles of the movement so much as the profitability of it.
In fact, according to Kenneth Davids, a foremost specialty coffee authority, Starbucks is against the grain in that they don't offer a superior choice on the supermarket shelves:
This quote comes from a 2003 article; nonetheless, in February 2006, Starbucks Columbia Narino scores below Safeway Select brand coffee by the Coffee Review. Frankly, that's pathetic.The exception to the generally superior performance of brands with a specialty background may be specialty giant Starbucks' line of supermarket coffees. Although we included only one Starbucks sample in this cupping (House Blend, rated 80), my previous cuppings of Starbucks supermarket coffees support the suspicion that the best Starbucks whole-bean coffees are seasonally featured single-origin selections sold in Starbucks stores and cafes, whereas Starbucks branded supermarket coffees tend to be lackluster and dominated by a clumsy, overbearing roast.
Bucks County Coffee, Allegro Coffee, Millstone, Illy and Green Mountain Coffee have been much more committed to and active in the grocery segment than SBUX.
I'm glad your parents have been converted.sippy cup wrote:i think using a coffee example is right on the mark. i know a lot of americans only come to be tea-drinkers after being long-time coffee drinkers, whether because of caffeine reasons, the health benefits, or just because they prefer the way it makes them feel. i think the coffee comparison is a pretty succinct way to get former coffee drinkers (a lot of americans...) to understand our beef with bagged grocery tea. in fact, i used that exact comparison with my formerly non-tea-drinking parents, and it seemed to be a eureka moment for them. they're now confirmed adagio lovers, i'm proud to say...
Unfortunately, I don't agree with telling pretty lies or making false comparisons to show others the light. But that's my pet peeve and I accept that most others don't understand, care, or hold themselves to the same standard. I know, picky picky picky me.Maybe if the text said, "Then Starbucks came along and helped show us how much better it can be," I wouldn't be so bothered.
When I read my mother the text in question, she said, "Huh? What's this stuff about Sanka? Doesn't Starbucks sell their own tea?" Then she talked to me for hours on end about, "Fill it to the rim with Brim," and bowel regularity.
I usually need only tell people that most bagged tea found in the supermarket is grown in Argentina for them to have a eureka moment. The words, "tea dust," also seem to work wonders on their own.
Anyway, I've made my point and have expressed my feelings and opinions enough. I'm sure everyone is tired of me beating this subject to death by now.
Let's start a new topic somewhere about introducing other people to tea: what we tell them, how we help them, etc. I'd love to exchange ideas and swap stories about what we each can do to help the cause. Let us accommodate for a myriad of approaches and multiple attitudes toward this common goal.
I thank everyone for the discussion here.
Will Gladly,
Jing Cha
I am tomorrow, or some future day, what I establish today. I am today what I established yesterday or some previous day.
Re: you call that foam? looks like meringue!
wow. i should've known disclosing that i work for starbucks would get my comments taken for corporate mouthpiecing. trust me, i know a hell of a lot about the coffee industry, and i've been coffee-obsessed way before i was a starbucks employee. outside of my workplace, i am not a starbucks drone, and i don't think they saved the world or even patron them on my own time, actually. it's my paycheck, and it's a wonderful place to work.
i was speaking generally about starbucks in grocery stores, and even as i wrote it i was thinking that you could nitpick and say "nay! starbucks was not the first!"--but i was hoping that, this being a message board and me being off the clock, and since we're talking about tea here, for god's sake, you'd understand that i meant this generally. i know beans were offered in stores before starbucks. and i know that they would've been offered anyway. but ask most people when they began to notice that there were options in coffee, etc, and most will mention starbucks--even those who don't like starbucks. i've had conversations with people about this before. i also think this is the way the comparison we're nitpicking about was intended. i am not speaking as an employee. i just don't like nitpicking about coffee and coffee history off the clock, because i'm not a coffee drinker anymore, and i'm required to learn so much (which is usually goes to waste, since most customers don't want to hear the history of a particular coffee--by the way, you should probably report whatever store you called that couldn't give you information; that should be an easy question).
so yes, i was using the "because they are perceived to have had the biggest impact" reason. i sort of understand why that would bug you, but i think when we're trying to talk about tea and using coffee as a common parallel, it's more important to appeal to what's most popularly known than to be terribly precise. precise about tea, sure, but starbucks and the rise of "better" coffee? i'm just not interested in doing that when i come here...
'Maybe if the text said, "Then Starbucks came along and helped show us how much better it can be," I wouldn't be so bothered.'
that would've seemed a little much to me. i went to a lot of coffee shops that i think were fantastic before starbucks came to my town, but i would say that the way i said things is much better, that starbucks was a symptom and its corporateness is what's important here, it was so sweeping that it affected perceptions that had not yet been reached--people who were already coffee connoisseurs weren't as affected, and may have known of better options much earlier, but that's totally irrelevant to what i'm saying. i don't personally believe that for this point, whether starbucks was "first" or not is important or even what i was asserting--i'm the last person who would've ever said that; i didn't really need the lesson. what's important is that starbucks is HUGE and almost no one who drinks coffee is unaware of them, even if the awareness is only in knowing that they're not the type who drinks starbucks coffee.
oy. so much coffee talk off the clock. i have a headache...i just wanted to say that i think someone needs to popularize good tea...yeesh.
i was speaking generally about starbucks in grocery stores, and even as i wrote it i was thinking that you could nitpick and say "nay! starbucks was not the first!"--but i was hoping that, this being a message board and me being off the clock, and since we're talking about tea here, for god's sake, you'd understand that i meant this generally. i know beans were offered in stores before starbucks. and i know that they would've been offered anyway. but ask most people when they began to notice that there were options in coffee, etc, and most will mention starbucks--even those who don't like starbucks. i've had conversations with people about this before. i also think this is the way the comparison we're nitpicking about was intended. i am not speaking as an employee. i just don't like nitpicking about coffee and coffee history off the clock, because i'm not a coffee drinker anymore, and i'm required to learn so much (which is usually goes to waste, since most customers don't want to hear the history of a particular coffee--by the way, you should probably report whatever store you called that couldn't give you information; that should be an easy question).
so yes, i was using the "because they are perceived to have had the biggest impact" reason. i sort of understand why that would bug you, but i think when we're trying to talk about tea and using coffee as a common parallel, it's more important to appeal to what's most popularly known than to be terribly precise. precise about tea, sure, but starbucks and the rise of "better" coffee? i'm just not interested in doing that when i come here...
'Maybe if the text said, "Then Starbucks came along and helped show us how much better it can be," I wouldn't be so bothered.'
that would've seemed a little much to me. i went to a lot of coffee shops that i think were fantastic before starbucks came to my town, but i would say that the way i said things is much better, that starbucks was a symptom and its corporateness is what's important here, it was so sweeping that it affected perceptions that had not yet been reached--people who were already coffee connoisseurs weren't as affected, and may have known of better options much earlier, but that's totally irrelevant to what i'm saying. i don't personally believe that for this point, whether starbucks was "first" or not is important or even what i was asserting--i'm the last person who would've ever said that; i didn't really need the lesson. what's important is that starbucks is HUGE and almost no one who drinks coffee is unaware of them, even if the awareness is only in knowing that they're not the type who drinks starbucks coffee.
oy. so much coffee talk off the clock. i have a headache...i just wanted to say that i think someone needs to popularize good tea...yeesh.
the way i see it
Oy Vey. I honestly did not expect such a belligerent reply. Please let me apologize for offending you with anything you may have misunderstood or anything I may have miscommunicated in my post.
It is my hope that we can agree to disagree and move on toward discussing more positive, constructive, perhaps pertinent and important matters; however, let me first address your claims and perhaps clarify myself as to not be so blatantly misunderstood.
I rather like Starbucks. I especially respect their employees and dedication to true quality customer service. I usually get a tea when I go there these days. I think their tea is much better than their coffee, personally. Tazo is pretty good stuff!
I also happen to know a lot of people who work at Starbucks in a variety of positions from corporate to roast plant to retail to wholesale. All are wonderful people and all love their jobs, work environment, and generous medical benefits. Only most of them don't care too much for that free pound of pay-out coffee each week! Heck, some of them don't like coffee, period. Especially my friend who is a, "master roaster." He doesn't like tea either. We call him No Fun.
Frankly, Starbucks has taught most people that coffee is better being mostly milk, sugar, and flavoring. And that's what the majority of people want, to be honest. It's not about better quality coffee so much as coffee drinks for which people will pay more money and come to your particular establishment again and again. That's like saying Bubble Tea has educated America about tea. Yes, it's making tea more popular; yes, it's a way to introduce people to real tea; yes, it can be quite tasty; but is it really . . .
How would you like it if someone said, "Remember when your choice in tea ranged from Lipton's to Nestea? Then Starbucks came along and showed us how much better it can be. The same is true . . ."
The biggest problem I have with this whole analogy isn't even about Starbucks. I can get the Starbucks reference, even if I disagree with it. But why Sanka and Folgers? I just don't get that.
As for the Puerto Rico coffee I mentioned, I did call and ask. I was told, after a day of research on behalf of a friendly and knowledgeable and thorough agent, "Oddly enough, that is proprietary information." Exact words.
If you bring it up, at least have the decency to discuss it openly, honestly and with a respect for accuracy. Don't say, "This is good. This is important. I like this. Yay this." And then tell someone you're not interested in discussing it or malign them for attempting to discuss it in an intelligent, well-informed manner. That's puerile at best.
Believe me--I doubt people want to hear about the intricacies of coffee and I understand why you don't want to get into it. I do sympathize greatly with you at your job, because you have this whole hunking overflowing gargantuan cornucopia of super-colossal knowledge and people think you're an excessive mammoth prodigious pest if you try to share it with them. That's why I say: Why not let tea stand on its own merits?
Also, I certainly feel there is a wealth of information in the coffee realm to draw upon to further the tea realm. You know, insight and observation beyond the catchy mundane logical fallacies. Things which might really help advance the cause of tea in America.
What Starbucks did was present a whole new culinary realm of coffee--espresso. That is a lot more than just stronger or fresher or better-quality coffee, as I'm sure you know. We're talking colloidal polyphasic foam, extraction of chemical elements under several times atmospheric pressure, preservation of delicate aromatics and depth and tone and character by forcing out oils and molecules which otherwise would never leave the bean. We're talking hot steamy milk and chocolate and vanilla and nut and mint and pumpkin spice and icy candy brain freezies and all that. This is where Starbucks has truly been influential and has raised awareness.
Really, the Italians invented espresso and popularized it in their country and now Starbucks has brought it to the masses in America and beyond. I know, I know, you know all this already. Since I don't know very much myself, do tell me: What exactly is the tea equivalent of espresso?
Again, it's not about who was first. (You're the one who brought up this whole first business in the first place.) It should also not be about who is biggest or trendiest or such. It's really not even about Starbucks. It's about being clear, on-topic, on-point, direct, convincing, appealing, honest, accurate and relevant. But that's just what I like and I accept that we differ on these counts.
Logical fallacy is a widely accepted practice in advertising, marketing, and promotion. In fact, it's often the premise of it. I respect Adagio immensely for not making widespread use of it, though they probably would be even more popular if they did. You know, cute little teddy bears on tins saying, "Tea takes all the achies away," and such. Or a picture of some hot babe saying, "Sooo refreshing! Nothing satisfies me like a big, steamy, hot, cup of Keemun Concerto Tea. Mmmmmh."
I mean, Tazo was started by the guys who brought us Stash Tea (which is much, much better than a lot of the other stuff out there) and was bought out by Starbucks in 1999. You don't get much bigger or well-connected or influential than that.
Why can't Starbucks popularize good tea? They certainly seem like the right candidate for the job.
Will Gladly,
Jing Cha
It is a curious thing, do you know, Cranly said dispassionately, how your mind is supersaturated with the religion in which you say you disbelieve.
It is my hope that we can agree to disagree and move on toward discussing more positive, constructive, perhaps pertinent and important matters; however, let me first address your claims and perhaps clarify myself as to not be so blatantly misunderstood.
No, I don't take you for being a corporate mouthpiece nor do I believe you to be a drone of Starbucks or any corporation or empire of imperial mind. I think you are stereotyping me as one of those many insipid, irate Starbucks-bashers. Those people are annoying. I know, I know, I'm annoying too! But at least I make some semblance of sense and have some solid, non-reactionary basis of reason and evidence for my words other than ad-hoc musings and trite anti-corporate sentiment. I'm a different breed of annoying: perspicacious.sippy cup wrote:i should've known disclosing that i work for starbucks would get my comments taken for corporate mouthpiecing. trust me, i know a hell of a lot about the coffee industry, and i've been coffee-obsessed way before i was a starbucks employee. outside of my workplace, i am not a starbucks drone, and i don't think they saved the world or even patron them on my own time, actually. it's my paycheck, and it's a wonderful place to work.
I rather like Starbucks. I especially respect their employees and dedication to true quality customer service. I usually get a tea when I go there these days. I think their tea is much better than their coffee, personally. Tazo is pretty good stuff!
I also happen to know a lot of people who work at Starbucks in a variety of positions from corporate to roast plant to retail to wholesale. All are wonderful people and all love their jobs, work environment, and generous medical benefits. Only most of them don't care too much for that free pound of pay-out coffee each week! Heck, some of them don't like coffee, period. Especially my friend who is a, "master roaster." He doesn't like tea either. We call him No Fun.
Starbucks has done and does a lot of wonderful, important, impressive things. Supermarket coffee is NOT one of them. This is fact, not opinion here. In fact, Starbucks purchased Seattle's Best Coffee and Torrefazione Italia from AFC franchises in hopes of improving its supermarket sales and reach. Quad Est Demonstratum.sippy cup wrote:i was speaking generally about starbucks in grocery stores, and even as i wrote it i was thinking that you could nitpick and say "nay! starbucks was not the first!"--but i was hoping that, this being a message board and me being off the clock, and since we're talking about tea here, for god's sake, you'd understand that i meant this generally.
Frankly, Starbucks has taught most people that coffee is better being mostly milk, sugar, and flavoring. And that's what the majority of people want, to be honest. It's not about better quality coffee so much as coffee drinks for which people will pay more money and come to your particular establishment again and again. That's like saying Bubble Tea has educated America about tea. Yes, it's making tea more popular; yes, it's a way to introduce people to real tea; yes, it can be quite tasty; but is it really . . .
How would you like it if someone said, "Remember when your choice in tea ranged from Lipton's to Nestea? Then Starbucks came along and showed us how much better it can be. The same is true . . ."
Does perpetuating consumer misinformation on one hand help promote consumer information on the other?sippy cup wrote:i know beans were offered in stores before starbucks. and i know that they would've been offered anyway. but ask most people when they began to notice that there were options in coffee, etc, and most will mention starbucks--even those who don't like starbucks. i've had conversations with people about this before. i also think this is the way the comparison we're nitpicking about was intended.
The biggest problem I have with this whole analogy isn't even about Starbucks. I can get the Starbucks reference, even if I disagree with it. But why Sanka and Folgers? I just don't get that.
If you want to call me a nit-picker, you are certainly not the first. But really--does truth count for nothing these days? Why pick on someone who wants to get to the bottom of the facts and explore complex economic and social and culinary phenomena? Are we really that shallow as to not ask questions or care about the answers anymore? I feel like I'm in George Orwell's 1984.sippy cup wrote:i am not speaking as an employee. i just don't like nitpicking about coffee and coffee history off the clock, because i'm not a coffee drinker anymore, and i'm required to learn so much (which is usually goes to waste, since most customers don't want to hear the history of a particular coffee--by the way, you should probably report whatever store you called that couldn't give you information; that should be an easy question).
As for the Puerto Rico coffee I mentioned, I did call and ask. I was told, after a day of research on behalf of a friendly and knowledgeable and thorough agent, "Oddly enough, that is proprietary information." Exact words.
Why doesn't that make you feel Adagio would be better off not mentioning coffee in the first place? Why do you defend it if you are not interested in discussing it?sippy cup wrote:sure, but starbucks and the rise of "better" coffee? i'm just not interested in doing that when i come here...
If you bring it up, at least have the decency to discuss it openly, honestly and with a respect for accuracy. Don't say, "This is good. This is important. I like this. Yay this." And then tell someone you're not interested in discussing it or malign them for attempting to discuss it in an intelligent, well-informed manner. That's puerile at best.
Believe me--I doubt people want to hear about the intricacies of coffee and I understand why you don't want to get into it. I do sympathize greatly with you at your job, because you have this whole hunking overflowing gargantuan cornucopia of super-colossal knowledge and people think you're an excessive mammoth prodigious pest if you try to share it with them. That's why I say: Why not let tea stand on its own merits?
Also, I certainly feel there is a wealth of information in the coffee realm to draw upon to further the tea realm. You know, insight and observation beyond the catchy mundane logical fallacies. Things which might really help advance the cause of tea in America.
So you're saying that Starbucks has been imperative in bringing the word to Podunk, America? Truth be told, a minority of people converted to coffee because of Starbucks--most were coffee drinkers all along. It's not like the situation with tea where presidential candidates get ridiculed for ordering a cup of green tea on the campaign trail.sippy cup wrote:that would've seemed a little much to me. i went to a lot of coffee shops that i think were fantastic before starbucks came to my town, but i would say that the way i said things is much better, that starbucks was a symptom and its corporateness is what's important here, it was so sweeping that it affected perceptions that had not yet been reached--people who were already coffee connoisseurs weren't as affected, and may have known of better options much earlier, but that's totally irrelevant to what i'm saying. i don't personally believe that for this point, whether starbucks was "first" or not is important or even what i was asserting--i'm the last person who would've ever said that.
What Starbucks did was present a whole new culinary realm of coffee--espresso. That is a lot more than just stronger or fresher or better-quality coffee, as I'm sure you know. We're talking colloidal polyphasic foam, extraction of chemical elements under several times atmospheric pressure, preservation of delicate aromatics and depth and tone and character by forcing out oils and molecules which otherwise would never leave the bean. We're talking hot steamy milk and chocolate and vanilla and nut and mint and pumpkin spice and icy candy brain freezies and all that. This is where Starbucks has truly been influential and has raised awareness.
Really, the Italians invented espresso and popularized it in their country and now Starbucks has brought it to the masses in America and beyond. I know, I know, you know all this already. Since I don't know very much myself, do tell me: What exactly is the tea equivalent of espresso?
Again, it's not about who was first. (You're the one who brought up this whole first business in the first place.) It should also not be about who is biggest or trendiest or such. It's really not even about Starbucks. It's about being clear, on-topic, on-point, direct, convincing, appealing, honest, accurate and relevant. But that's just what I like and I accept that we differ on these counts.
Logical fallacy is a widely accepted practice in advertising, marketing, and promotion. In fact, it's often the premise of it. I respect Adagio immensely for not making widespread use of it, though they probably would be even more popular if they did. You know, cute little teddy bears on tins saying, "Tea takes all the achies away," and such. Or a picture of some hot babe saying, "Sooo refreshing! Nothing satisfies me like a big, steamy, hot, cup of Keemun Concerto Tea. Mmmmmh."
Well, what is good tea? Why isn't Tazo the answer?sippy cup wrote:i just wanted to say that i think someone needs to popularize good tea...yeesh.
I mean, Tazo was started by the guys who brought us Stash Tea (which is much, much better than a lot of the other stuff out there) and was bought out by Starbucks in 1999. You don't get much bigger or well-connected or influential than that.
Why can't Starbucks popularize good tea? They certainly seem like the right candidate for the job.
Will Gladly,
Jing Cha
It is a curious thing, do you know, Cranly said dispassionately, how your mind is supersaturated with the religion in which you say you disbelieve.