Starbucks
Web: Starbucks
Rating:    [learn more]
See More Restaurant Reviews For:
Amherst Buffalo Cheektowaga Clarence Coffee Desserts Drinks Williamsville

"Starbucks is an inconsistent mess right now, and we've sworn off its franchised locations, but try as we might, we can't stop visiting our favorite hometown shop."

"You paid $4 for that," she said. "$5," I corrected her, grimacing at the watery, less than completely full cup with an icey mint green substance inside. "So you deserve to have it made right," she said, approaching the barista behind the counter to ask for a remake. "They already 'remade' it once," I explained, "and that's what I got. It's obviously not going to get better." So instead of a replacement, we requested a free drink coupon, and left the sloppy, wrong-colored Green Tea Frappuccino on the counter. Waiting five minutes and walking away with nothing was disappointing, yet only one day later, we found ourselves patronizing a different location of the store - it was, after all, just down the street, despite the fact that we were on one of Hawaii's less populated islands. This time, our two frozen drinks arrived with uneven striations of fluid and ice, the result of poor blending. And for what seemed like the umpteenth time, we blamed the barista, not her employer. Welcome to Starbucks, the only restaurant chain we can't and won't escape, circa late 2008.

For whatever reason, we've spent months thinking about how we would write about Starbucks for Buffalo Chow; this coffee shop, this American obsession, this international sensation, is a topic that we needn't have touched, but nonetheless felt obliged to discuss here. We visit weekly, sometimes more often, and consider ourselves both fans and critics of the chain, simultaneously loving the drinks from our favorite local shop and hating the ones we've tried in cities ranging from Kauai to Bangkok. It is virtually a truism that Starbucks stores have opened everywhere, in small and large American neighborhoods, famously and controversially inside China's Forbidden City, and, as Lewis Black amusingly first noted, right across from one another in shopping plazas. Starbucks is not a Buffalo restaurant. But it now has such a footprint in Western New York, and wherever else we have traveled, that it requires discussion as a cultural reference point. It is the McDonalds of coffee, except that its prices are much higher, its quality far more inconsistent between locations, and, ironically, its key product - drip coffee - has actually rated lower than McDonalds' in national taste tests. For some, premium-priced coffee drinks have never made sense, and never will. Other people swear by them, or have other favorites that keep them coming back weekly, or even daily, for more.

Understanding the appeal of Starbucks requires more than just a discerning tongue. When challenged by investors or critics, the company explains that its customers aren't just buying coffee, but rather an experience, complete with the ambience of a small, cozy shop where they can drink while relaxing or working, get wireless access to the Internet, and snack on pastries, cakes, or breakfast items. A Starbucks is supposed to be a place where a couple can go in the winter for premium hot chocolate, in the summer for frozen Frappuccinos, and at any time for a cup of coffee, a Tazo tea, or a cookie. It is still, as its founders originally intended, a place to buy coffee beans. But it is now critically, as its popularizer and current CEO re-envisioned it in the late 1970's, an Italian-style bar for lattes, cappuccinos, espressos, and drip coffee - unapologetically expensive ones, which don't become cheaper when the economy declines. Instead, you may pay less for a bulk $100 package of Starbucks gift cards, or get an annual $25 Gold Card for small discounts on individual purchases. You will still pay Starbucks, and continue to patronize it, if you want to eventually "save" money there.

In an effort to understand the Starbucks phenomenon a bit better, we decided to hold off on writing this article until we visited the chain's first store at Seattle's Pike Place Market, the place where CEO Howard Schultz belatedly convinced the company's merchant founders to try selling drinks rather than just bags of coffee beans. But if anything, the Pike Place location distracted us from the reality of the Starbucks chain; it is uncharacteristically dark and almost charmless in its decoration, lacking for seating, and similarly missing many of the characteristics of the chain's other locations. As of when we visited, it didn't even have one of the company's new Clover coffee machines - the ones Starbucks recently purchased by literally buying out the manufacturer, who had previously been supplying the company's better-tasting competitors. This might have explained why the drip coffee we tried at Pike Place was nothing special, merely a cardboard cup of hot, muddy water, served without joy. Yet no one claims that McDonalds makes the best-tasting hamburgers or serves them with a smile, either; it's ubiquity and pricing, rather than quality, that guarantees that chain's success.

That Starbucks doesn't have pricing on its side explains why our story opened as it did above. When customers order $5 drinks - or even $3 ones - they expect what's delivered to be at least very good, if not great. They may well go back to the counter and complain, or as we attempted to do, ask nicely for a drink to be fixed before throwing their hands up in disgust. Our Frappuccino, one we'd had a hundred times before in a properly strong, spinach-like hue, arrived with barely any green color or tea flavor; then, when remade, it had lost a full cup size in volume. The barista clearly didn't know what she was doing, and didn't care about fixing it to anyone's satisfaction. Our two-star rating is primarily due to the fact that there are certain Starbucks locations, and staffers, that consistently screw up the chain's premium drinks. A fantastic independent web site, Starbucks Gossip, allows employees - "partners," in the company's terminology - to blame such problems on the presence of lower-quality franchised and drive-through locations. Yet while there is no doubt that these franchises, including airport, bookstore, grocery store, and international locations, are almost invariably worse than Starbucks' company-owned shops, there are plenty of poorly-trained baristas in the "good" shops as well. They churn out cups of improperly blended, barely flavored ice and cream rather than hearty coffee or tea milkshakes; they similarly deliver burning hot cups of overcooked, watered-down beans rather than delicious cups of coffee. We're inclined to think it's the cooks, not the recipes. This is clearly a case of a company that has expanded too much, too fast, without properly training all of its new staff.

Starbucks seems to understand as much - sort of. It has shuttered a sizable fraction of its stores, with ominous suggestions that more closings are to follow. And it closed most of its shops early one day for "retraining," taking a very public opportunity to acknowledge that there were quality control issues throughout the chain, along with a corresponding need to remedy them. Unfortunately, we noticed little change after these events transpired; in Seattle, as well as in Western New York, we still see shopping malls with two or three distinct Starbucks locations inside, and bad drinks continue to flood counters at the most offensive locations - ones, perhaps, that Starbucks' national management doesn't visit, or for whatever reason doesn't care to properly control through threats of closure or franchise revocation. There seem to be fewer and fewer of the chain's "black apron" baristas, people who have been specially and properly trained in making the company's drinks; now, there's just an unending sea of green aprons, and perhaps like Star Trek, red ones as well. Most disturbingly, the company just this week touted the benefits of its "low investment" international licensed store program - some of the shops that make the worst versions of its beverages. Is it possible, despite the moves forwards, that Starbucks' executives still don't understand the breadth and causes of the quality issues?

Perhaps they find it easier to focus on the stores where things are going right; it's surely the great baristas and their great drinks that keep us - and others - coming back to other locations despite all of the ones with problems. Specifically, we're enraptured by the fall season's Pumpkin Spice Lattes, the Christmastime Eggnog and Gingerbread drinks, and the surprisingly frequent infusions of new, occasionally smart experimental offerings. Pinkberry yogurt-inspired shakes? We've been anxious to try them since we heard they were being tested in Los Angeles last summer. Free wireless Internet access for iPhone users? Wow. And the old favorites - the grande Caramel or Green Tea Frappuccinos, tall Vanilla Lattes, and Tazo Passion Fruit Iced Teas - are, at least at the "right" locations that patrons hunt around for, with the right baristas, consistently enjoyable. If the drinks were always this good, no matter which location we visited, we might even go more often. This is true even at drive-through locations that some of Starbucks' baristas may downplay; with the right people behind the counters making drinks, some customers won't need to sit down or use the Internet to feel like they're getting their money's worth.

On the other hand, there are better ways to spend $4-5, even on coffee. Seattle may have dozens of Starbucks locations all over the place, only blocks apart from one another, but we found ourselves this week far more impressed with Espresso Vivace's plain-named lattes: the walls of this small but popular three-shop chain are decorated with photos of the art that its baristas create in the foam of their coffee cups, just one of the little ways Vivace reminds you that its staff is willing to do more than just run a blender to earn your patronage. Another is the taste, and another is the foam; Vivace's drinks are delicious, and come out the right way the first time, rather than after a series of instructions and remakes. Coming here and ordering simply makes one think that the reason people are so specific at Starbucks may just be that they're so accustomed to having their drinks done wrong that they've stopped taking chances. It also makes one realize that there are big and small things that Starbucks could be doing a lot better for its prices.

And if you don't want to spend $4 on a drink, there are of course other options. Countries such as Japan have the best options, superb hot and cold premade coffees served from vending machines and convenience stores; Suntory's Boss Coffee is a long-time Buffalo Chow favorite. In the United States, Dunkin Donuts has come out swinging with inexpensive coffees, while McDonalds has recently launched an ad campaign calling out Starbucks for "dumb" prices and overly frilly drink names. "Large is the new Grande," proclaims one billboard. Yet somehow, despite the inconsistency, the screwups, and the poor economy, we don't think that Starbucks needs to worry - at least, yet. McDonalds is on shaky ground when it needs to reference a competitor to advertise its own products, and the very idea of patronizing such a mediocre burger shop for coffee is repulsive to Starbucks' many fans. So long as the company continues to innovate, maintain the cleanliness of its stores, and improve the quality of its core offerings - drinks, snacks, and comfortable wireless Internet access - it will retain most of its customers. And unless something truly better comes along at a great price, we'll continue to be among them. As a chain, Starbucks is somewhat of an inconsistent mess right now, and we've sworn off patronizing its franchised domestic and international locations, but try as we might, we can't stop visiting our favorite hometown shop. We'll let you know if we feel otherwise six months from now.