And, Starbucks apparently started selling their CDs upwards of ten years ago now, if I recall correctly.

I agree completely with your opinion of Barnes and Noble (they have a great market on self published very cool looking journals). But, I would differ on the computer store. Computer stores are notoriously obnoxious and visually busy. Excepting Apple of course, which would explain why Apple generates more revenue a square foot of retail space than any other store in the world.

The computer stores kind of dump you into a complex environment and expect you to shop like a grocery store. At least the big chains do. Yes, they have the add on sales because they want to get all the money on the table, but in my opinion, they do a bad job of it.

As a side note (yeah, I sold computers once), most of the big ticket items (especially Apple products) have almost zero revenue. A company will go out of business if it only sells the main item: computer, TV, or iPod. There is no money there. The money comes from the accessories where margins could be as high as 100%.

In my opinion, the best computer stores are boutiques. Like Starbucks and to a lesser degree Barnes and Nobles.

Anyway, if the company controls the production of everything that goes into their store, that explains the integration. Although, since so many companies are under mega-corporations, I wonder why other companies havn’t instituted uniformity. I also wonder if Starbucks only recently started carrying products for that reason: they didn’t have stuff for sale at first. Barnes and Noble has some measure of control on that front as well, and their stores are some of the least affronting where merchandise is concerned.

Which leads to another common denominator: theme. Barnes and Noble mostly sells books and related materials, with a few other items in and around the store. Starbucks sells mostly coffee and related services, with a few other items in and around that product. They draw you in for one purpose, and then present “service options” related to that (and don’t tell me that pre-made scones are not a service; I’ve made them, and its fun, but not a task for the kitchen beginner). Hmmm, computer stores do the same thing, in a way; buy the ipod, and now there are a million things you can buy to enhance it.

Please remember that this site is dedicated to encouraging people to learn from books despite their objectionable content. We believe that many books retain value even when they contain aspects that we disagree with. Also, here are some early morning fairly quick responses. If you like them, then I was brilliant at 5 AM. If not, I was foggy and confused at 5 AM.
Most companies over a certain size lean leftward. Pick any company and I can probably find proof that they supported homosexual advocacy groups, pro-abortion, climate change, environmental extremism etc….

So, from my perspective, it would be stating the obvious (and boycotting everyone of these companies would drive me to live on a self-sufficient farm). Maybe that’s the wrong choice, but thats how I view it. Yeah, I did consider the fact that Starbucks explicitly promotes and encourages “diversity” when I wrote this. But, it didn’t seem to change the fact that Starbucks has found a creative method to reach customers that we can all learn from regardless of their political leanings.

As for the part about Starbucks taking tips. I didn’t comment on it because I hadn’t heard of it. That was one of the weaknesses of the book. There was no mention of negatives nor how Starbucks learned and changed to overcome the negatives. From my experience, every company does stuff that the employees consider wrong. How many companies lay off employees while giving the CEO bonuses? How many companies require all tips to be turned in? (Yeah, I worked at that one.) How many companies lay off 10% of the staff and require the rest to pick up the slack? Is that fair? No. Would employees consider that to be “screwing” them? Sure.

So, I am not certain how this issue matters. When I see that Starbucks forced their coffee growers to demonstrate improved wages and lifestyles for the growers employees, I’m impressed. When I hear that Starbucks pays higher wages to their partners in the store, gives them free coffee to brew at home, trains them, empowers them, and then praises them for their hard work, an issue with tips seems small in comparison. To my understanding, the partners still make more than their peers at other coffee or fast food shops.

A grocery store can control the environment and layout, but they cannot control the packaging (unless they go by the name Walmart). The producers create packaging that is supposed to jump out and grab your attention. It needs to step out of the environment and be the silent salesman.

Starbucks isn’t limited that way. So they can do whatever they want and control the entire channel.

I mean, you go into the average grocery store and the marketing hits you like a physical blow. Its not really fun to shop in, and one must wonder why that is the case. Especially when Starbuck’s products are eye-catching without intruding on the atmosphere.

I don’t understand why that is either. Maybe we should start at the beginning. Is (the grocery store effect) because there is so much choice, but its all spread out and it looks like less, (and your mind stores all the info on what else there is, so that in your mind there is more)? If so, why does that bother us more than the Starbucks method, and what is different?

Nicely done.

Yeah, you have a great point about how they approach advertising. The merchandise fits into the atmosphere. Very well done approach. I can’t figure out how they make that happen, but it is well done.

In this political climate, serving the customer’s green conscience is a service people will pay top dollar for. Starbucks has that one down pat, from donations to environmental organizations to the kinds of eco-friendly (and very spendy) items they sell in the shop area, to the green-themed logo on recycled paper cup holders.

I think my favorite starbucks thing is how their merchendise is so smoothly integrated into the atmosphere. You can’t help but notice the items, yet because of how the racks blend in with the surroundings, it still feels like a simple coffee house. That is the free market for you. And of course, they can afford the nice racks because of how much you’re paying for that coffee (I love the give-and-get cycle, because it shows how alot of things the government currently does could-and are being-done by the business world and much more efficiently at that).

I once helped open a restaurant. As I recall, the restaurant coffee (mid to low grade) cost around $1 a large pot. It might have been less, but costs were covered after the first cup of coffee (including water and electricity). Iced tea was the same way. So, yeah, I would expect that Starbucks only needs to sell one or two cups to cover the batch.

They pay more per employee with higher wages and more training then other places, but they gain efficiencies from that. An employee who “owns” the business and enjoys work will be more likely to work in a manner that increases the bottom line. They are not in an adversarial relationship with management but pulling the company into a better position.

The revenue that Starbucks generates is necessary to empower the types of generosity they display. Then again their generosity encourages people to pay more. Nice cycle that is….

Yeah, Albertsons does it right. If you demonstrate to your customers that you care about them, then they will reward you buy coming back. In my opinion, the best way to take care of your customers is to care for your employees. If the employees are willing to work with you and you give them permission to solve the customers needs/wants/desires, it can only improve the bottom line over the long haul. (Yes, there will be some employees who need training on how to solve the needs without giving away the shop, but that is usually the minority.)

Care for your house first, then they will care for the customers happily.