I walked into a local Starbucks Friday and was surprised to find they were nearly out of food. I went in to treat myself to a scone (shhh, don’t tell my doctor), and the restaurant was out of scones, and just about everything else to eat.
They were not out of coffee, of course. They were knee deep in coffee. But they also advertise food. Shouldn’t they have had it?
Maybe Starbucks just stocks enough food to keep people from going to other places which serve coffee, but also serve food as well.
I have to admit I like Starbucks coffee, so I probably will continue to go there when all I want is coffee. But when I want food, I’m not sure I’ll go back. It’s terrible to stand in line for 10 minutes and then be told you can’t have that scone or that muffin you wanted.
The reason I have been thinking about this at all is that I read recently that Starbucks will start selling soft drinks soon — non-coffee soft drinks. Will it be Pepsi or Coke? Nah. The head of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, is inventing a soft drink he hopes people will line up for.
But here’s the question: Will those people be told, when they get to the counter, that the restaurant is all out of whatever concoction it is that Schultz comes up with?
Also, will Coke and Pepsi stand for Starbucks horning into the soft drink business? Starbucks is a big organization, but it’s puny when you put it next to Coke and Pepsi.
Another thing: You can get a fountain Coke or Pepsi for $1.25 or so. I can’t imagine Starbuck’s selling anything for less than $3.50.
Who will be dumb enough to pay that much for a soft drink? Well let’s see — who has been dumb enough to pay $3.50 for a cup of coffee all these years? If I looked in the mirror I would have the answer.