The Hippy Evil Empire
February 26th, 2009 | by admin |Guy Kingston asked:
Seattle, Washington, has become a centre of West Coast chic. It is as cool as LA, using the word “cool” in the modern sense, meaning “fashionable” – although it is also cooler than LA in the more traditional sense of the word, meaning colder, and wetter.
It is therefore ironic that this global symbol of all that is hip and trendy is also the home of two multinationals which have become symbols of the unacceptable face of globalised, anti-competitive capitalism.
One of them, Microsoft, chose an affluent suburb of Seattle as its world headquarters, but the other, Starbucks, is home-grown.
Starbucks’ status as local hero did not protect it from being a prime target of rioters during the World Trade Organisation summit held in the city in 1999. They were following an established tradition: whenever protests against globalisation get out of hand, the violent fringe seems to make vandalising the nearest Starbucks a top priority.
Starbucks themselves have always been perplexed by the hatred they provoke on the left. They are, in many ways, a model of what those on the left would want a business to be: their employment practices, like Microsoft’s, are generally liberal, and they were one of the first multinationals to embrace “fair trade” – not in the traditional sense, as a euphemism for protectionism, but in the sense of sourcing their products in a way that they consider ethical.
They seem sincere about these principles and spend a great deal promoting them.
Yet there are people who spend a great deal of time – and money – criticising them. There are whole websites dedicated to complaining about Starbucks over a range of issues, including labour relations and the environment.
Does one believe Starbucks, who obviously have a vested interest in protecting their image, or their critics, who can be, to put it politely, a bit strange?
In addition to being under constant attack from the political left, Starbucks is also threatened from the right. An e-mail was circulated very widely alleging that Starbucks had refused to supply coffee to US Forces in Afghanistan because they opposed the war there.
This allegation was in turn denounced on the internet as an “urban myth”. Unfortunately, the nature of the internet means that the denunciations are as unreliable as the original allegation. Anyone can say anything online. A credible looking website could disguise either a corporate stooge or a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Once again, whom should one believe?
The most persistent allegation against Starbucks – one which has the potential to bring left and right together – is the commonly held view that global chains like Starbucks drive “small local coffee shops” out of business.
It is certainly true that there are a lot of Starbucks around, and many small local coffee shops have disappeared.
However, it is also true that running a small local coffee shop has always been a precarious business. Their average lifespan is notoriously short. Many are very badly run. Most of those which have disappeared would have gone anyway. Starbucks provided a convenient excuse.
Moreover, Starbucks can claim to be responsible for the revival of the whole coffee house culture. The customer base of the old coffee shops was limited. It was the global chains who really opened them out to everyone.
Few of the old coffee shops were on the high streets or in the prime locations favoured by Starbucks. They could not afford them. They did not attract enough customers.
That may change. The recession is already altering spending patterns. If there is a time for smaller, local coffee shops, it is now, when people may be looking for an alternative to the expensive designer coffee.
However, the greater danger is that the coffee shop is one of the luxuries people will cut out altogether.
Strange, but we may miss even the Starbucks when they are gone.
SUMMER
Seattle, Washington, has become a centre of West Coast chic. It is as cool as LA, using the word “cool” in the modern sense, meaning “fashionable” – although it is also cooler than LA in the more traditional sense of the word, meaning colder, and wetter.
It is therefore ironic that this global symbol of all that is hip and trendy is also the home of two multinationals which have become symbols of the unacceptable face of globalised, anti-competitive capitalism.
One of them, Microsoft, chose an affluent suburb of Seattle as its world headquarters, but the other, Starbucks, is home-grown.
Starbucks’ status as local hero did not protect it from being a prime target of rioters during the World Trade Organisation summit held in the city in 1999. They were following an established tradition: whenever protests against globalisation get out of hand, the violent fringe seems to make vandalising the nearest Starbucks a top priority.
Starbucks themselves have always been perplexed by the hatred they provoke on the left. They are, in many ways, a model of what those on the left would want a business to be: their employment practices, like Microsoft’s, are generally liberal, and they were one of the first multinationals to embrace “fair trade” – not in the traditional sense, as a euphemism for protectionism, but in the sense of sourcing their products in a way that they consider ethical.
They seem sincere about these principles and spend a great deal promoting them.
Yet there are people who spend a great deal of time – and money – criticising them. There are whole websites dedicated to complaining about Starbucks over a range of issues, including labour relations and the environment.
Does one believe Starbucks, who obviously have a vested interest in protecting their image, or their critics, who can be, to put it politely, a bit strange?
In addition to being under constant attack from the political left, Starbucks is also threatened from the right. An e-mail was circulated very widely alleging that Starbucks had refused to supply coffee to US Forces in Afghanistan because they opposed the war there.
This allegation was in turn denounced on the internet as an “urban myth”. Unfortunately, the nature of the internet means that the denunciations are as unreliable as the original allegation. Anyone can say anything online. A credible looking website could disguise either a corporate stooge or a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Once again, whom should one believe?
The most persistent allegation against Starbucks – one which has the potential to bring left and right together – is the commonly held view that global chains like Starbucks drive “small local coffee shops” out of business.
It is certainly true that there are a lot of Starbucks around, and many small local coffee shops have disappeared.
However, it is also true that running a small local coffee shop has always been a precarious business. Their average lifespan is notoriously short. Many are very badly run. Most of those which have disappeared would have gone anyway. Starbucks provided a convenient excuse.
Moreover, Starbucks can claim to be responsible for the revival of the whole coffee house culture. The customer base of the old coffee shops was limited. It was the global chains who really opened them out to everyone.
Few of the old coffee shops were on the high streets or in the prime locations favoured by Starbucks. They could not afford them. They did not attract enough customers.
That may change. The recession is already altering spending patterns. If there is a time for smaller, local coffee shops, it is now, when people may be looking for an alternative to the expensive designer coffee.
However, the greater danger is that the coffee shop is one of the luxuries people will cut out altogether.
Strange, but we may miss even the Starbucks when they are gone.
SUMMER
Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.