It was entertaining to see Starbucks state the switch to 2% milk was for the benefit of the public health, like it wasn't starting to feel such pain that it became interested in pocketing 8¢ per gallon over 300 million gallons per year.
Maybe the coup de gras was McDonalds (MCD) being rated by Consumer Reports to have better coffee -- "without flaws" compared to "burned".
Having expanded into music to try to capture spare change from its flow of customers, Starbucks now apparently admits it can't do non-coffee products competitively. Or, at least -- it can't do music. So long, sucka.
The remaining question is: with financially significant competitors like McDonalds entering the gourmet coffee business and offering bistro-style or café-like atmosphere in new-format stores (links here and here), will Starbucks still be able to charge a premium for the same beans McDonalds can process into final products with better consistency and effect?
I'm bearish on Starbucks (SBUX) as a result, but I've not gone short. Betting against crazy people puts you at war with the world, and it's a hard place to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Good-natured and spirited debate welcome. Ranting flameouts might consider posting elsewhere. Relevant posts containing links to your own's blog's comments on the subject are always welcome; incoherent mumblings accompanied by spam posts for commercial products are just not cool. Use good sense.